ae 


Col 


ae 
bd 


F 


ia 


af 


u 


ipa 


a 


aller 


. 


2 
ache 


tr 
: 


on 


o~ 


THE UNIVERSITY 
OF ILLINOIS 
LIBRARY 


(‘Silas 
W 43m 


Return this book on or before the 
Latest Date stamped below. A 
charge is made on all overdue 
books. 


University of Illinois Library 


27214 


Digitized by the Internet Archive 
in 2022 with funding from 
University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign Alternates 


https://archive.org/details/measurementoffai0Owats 


> 


THE MEASUREMENT OF 
FAIR-MINDEDNESS 


By 


GOODWIN B. WATSON, Ps.D. 


TEACHERS COLLEGE, COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY 
CONTRIBUTIONS TO EDUCATION, NO. 176 


Published by 
Teachers College, Columbia Cnibersitp 
New York City 
1925 


a 47 [ SORES 


Copyright, 1925, DUTCH eet 


i 


(a ee Re 


YAR 


SADHIAAIROWAN EL EVM 
SPAWNS 


—) 


3) Oot 2S 


eM 


te | 


A, na 


hee 
WV 32 ™) | 
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 


The author wishes to express his deep and genuine gratitude to 
Professor George A. Coe for the stimulus of his keen thought, to 
Professor William H. Kilpatrick for the richness of the experience 
and counsel which he offered, to Professor William A. McCall for 
most interesting and quite indispensable guidance through the 
technical problems of the study, and to Professor Harrison S. Elliott 
of Union Theological Seminary for encouragement of the entire 
enterprise. 

To Miss Mildred Barthelmess of the State Normal School at 
Trenton, New Jersey, to Professor Jerome Davis of the Yale Di- 
vinity School, and again, particularly to Professor Elliott, the author 
is indebted for opportunities to carry forward this study in groups 
which could not otherwise have been reached. 

Unfortunately, because of the confidential nature of their assist- 
ance, direct personal acknowledgment cannot here be made of 
the service of many persons who contributed significantly to the 
enterprise. However, the author does wish to recognize the valuable 
aid so graciously rendered by his brethren in the ministry of the 
Methodist Episcopal Church, and by his teachers and fellow 
students in Teachers College and in Union Theological Seminary. 


j G. B. W. 
New York City 
April, 1925 


fa 
ans eee | R is 
v 


AH 


me 


ANTE ote Z 


ATEN ‘ae 


4 


CONTENTS 


CHAP: PAGE 
I. THe NEED FOR TESTS OF FAIR-MINDEDNESS .. . . I 
PERU CONSTRUCTION OF THRU TESTS) ib tal a) ke pecs 8 
eR SCORING OF THE DESTSu se mmmmetm ican cela ieert:. dyey sta TS 
DV WWHAT DO. THE TESTS REALLY MEASURE? 20400 0.04, 2218 
Vee SUGGESTED USES FOR: THE LESTS 92) fn 3 82s. a 36 
APPENDIX 
BIN DIVIG AL’ PROFILES tained ae nO ee ae get 
Se sROUT PROFILES! nine ee wenn enuenOM me enEN nna: UIE hE CGS 


Se TISTIGAT, LABLES? | eeu tyme alii a eth tee oh te kes 


CHAPTER I 
THE NEED FOR TESTS OF FAIR-MINDEDNESS 


Swift changes have come in educational practice since the days of 
not so long ago, when the efficiency of the instruction which had 
been meted out to the youth of the countryside was judged by the 
formal visit of school committee-men who were more possessed of 
a sense of responsibility and dignity, than of techniques for measur- 
ing achievement. Now, one who would ask regarding the efficiency 
of a teacher or curriculum must be prepared for a volley of I. Q.’s, 
E.Q.’s and A.Q.’s, with a running accompaniment of norms, stand- 
ard deviations, correlations, and probable errors. If, perchance, 
some of the tests have been too hastily thrown together, and if 
some of the results have been much too hastily interpreted, that 
would be but natural. The measurement movement in education 
is not the first advance of science which some have “loved, not 
wisely, but too well.” 

Advance, it surely has been. Whatever mistakes shall have to 
be discovered and corrected, there will remain a large residue of 
gain. Future generations will be able to select curricula and meth- 
ods with far greater effectiveness, because of those indefatigable 
workers who have discovered how to answer some questions begin- 
ning, “‘How much,” and “How many.”’ 

Much of the dissatisfaction that has arisen in connection with 
this movement has expressed itself in a demand for tests of some- 
thing more important than the abilities thus far measured. Some 
who believe that ‘‘out of the heart are the issues of life,’’ have 
been searching for more accurate methods of evaluating motives, 
feelings, and purposes. Indeed, they may have had considerable 
reason for their fear that because certain qualities were easily 
measured, these qualities might be taken as criteria of desirable 
learning. It is possible that the contrary would be nearer the 
truth. Too often has schoolroom practice been controlled by the 
fact that supervisors could measure changes in ability to manipulate 
figures but could not measure the purposes which the child had in 
manipulating the figures. Hence, it has sometimes been said that 
the school was more concerned in teaching pupils how to write 
than in helping them to discriminate between forgery and an eman- 
cipation proclamation as an end for which the writing was to be 


2 The Measurement of Fair-Mindedness 


used. Most skills and techniques of the kind which has been meas- 
ured are two-edged swords,—they can be used for the welfare of 
society or for its detriment. 

A number of attempts have been made to measure something 
other than intelligence or practical educational skills. Among a 
large number of attempts, only four or five have at the present 
date been standardized. One is Miss Downey’s Will-Temperament 
Test. With its many useful features, it is limited by the fact that 
temperament is measured in so small a realm, namely, that of 
expression through handwriting. A second test is the Pressey 
Cross-Out Test. This affords considerable aid in the discovery of 
persons who are emotionaly unstable. Third, we have the Wood- 
worth Questionnaire, which sheds some light on the causal factors 
in emotional conditioning. A fourth test is Koh’s Test of Ethical 
Discrimination, on which not many norms are now available. The 
Hart Test of Social Attitudes and Interests contains some very 
excellent material, but has not yet been fully standardized. The 
Kent-Rosanoff Association Test is also of considerable worth in 
discovering emotional complexes. 

Among the attitudes which are considered most desirable by a 
considerable group of religious educators is one which is called 
variously, Open-Mindedness, Freedom from Prejudice, Scientific- 
Mindedness, and Fair-Mindedness. 

Something of the sort seems to be suggested by Professor Coe’s 
criticism! of religious instruction which leads not to knowledge 
but to partisanship, and his emphasis of fair-mindedness and teach- 
ableness as objectives in the education of modern youths.? 

Even more clearly such a viewpoint is set forth by Hocking in 
Human Nature and tts Remaking*® when he sets up an ideal of a 


iThis kind of instruction in childhood produces not only in Catholicism but also in Protestantism 
an easily recognized adult type, the man who settles historical or scientific questions without his- 
torical or scientific study, and by the result judges whether his neighbors are sheep or goats.... 

There is no security for worthy ends short of the habit of considering others’ points of view. 

Coe, Geo. A., A Social Theory of Religious Education, pp. 65, 40. 

*Aneducatedman . . . must have command of the method of the mind, and he must be—. 
to some extent—a thinker, not a mere imitator. He may or may not have more opinions than other ' 
persons, but he has more opinions to which he hasaright . . . og 

To the extent that society is organized in the interest of the common Rood: and chooses its means 
by scientific types of analysis, the attitude of teachableness supplants that of dogmatic assertion. 

Coe, Geo. A., What Ails our Youth? pp. 39, 77. 

3Why do we not display with complete equableness all views of the best way of life, and say 
‘Now choose; think out your course for yourself’? Instead of teaching our children our morality, 
why not teach them ethical science? Instead of religion, metaphysical criticism? Instead of po- 
litical faith, political philosophy? Instead of manners, the principles of aesthetics? In short, why 
not make thinkers of them rather than partisans? 

Hocking, W. E., Human Nature and Its Remaking, pp. 230-23. 


The Need for Tests of Fatr-Mindedness 3 


rational scientifically-minded generation, free to choose its own 
best course. 

Likewise Miss Follett in The New State, a well-known exposition 
of a new social and political philosophy, finds open-mindedness 
one of the central prerequisites. In every disagreement she be- 
lieves men should find a new challenge to investigation and re- 
thinking, not an occasion for intellectual strife. 

Frequently, in his writings, Professor John Dewey has set forth 
very clearly an educational objective of open-mindedness.® He 


4The lesson of the new psychology is, then: Never settle down within the theory you have 
chosen, the cause you have embraced; know that another theory, another cause exists and seek 
that. The enhancement of life is not for the comfort-lover. As soon as you succeed,—real success 
means something arising to overthrow your security 

And throughout our participation in the group process we must be ever on our guard that we 

do not confuse differences and antagonisms, that diversity does not arouse hostility. Suppose a 

friend says something with which I do not agree. It may be that instantly I feel antagonistic, feel 
as if we were on opposite sides, and my emotions are at once tinged with some of the enmity which 
being on opposite sides usually brings. Our relations become slightly strained, we change the 
subject as soon as possible, etc. But suppose we were really civilized beings, then we should think, 

‘How interesting this is; this idea has evidently a larger content than I realized; if my friend and I 
can unify this material we shall separate with a larger idea than either of us had before!”’ 

Follett, M. P., The New State, pp. 38, 40. 
5Some attitudes may be named which are central in effective intellectual ways of dealing with 
subject matter. Among the most important are directness, open-mindedness, single-mindedness 

(or whole-heartedness) and responsibility 

Open-mindedness. Partiality is, as we have seen, an accompaniment of the existence of interest, 
since this means sharing, partaking, taking sides in some movement. All the more reason, therefore, 
for an attitude of mind which actively welcomes suggestions and relevant information from all 
sides . . . Openness of mind means accessibility of mind to any and every consideration 
that will throw light upon the situation that needs to be cleared up, and that will help determine 
the consequences of acting this way or that . . . The worst thing about stubbornness of 

. mind, about prejudices, is that they arrest development; they shut the mind off from new stimuli. 
Open-mindedness means the retention of the childlike attitude; closed-mindedness means premature 
intellectual old age : 

Open-mindedness is not the same as empty-mindedness. To hang out a sign saying, ‘Come 
right in; there is no one at home’ is not the equivalent of hospitality. But there is a kind of passivity, 
willing to let experiences accumulate and sink in and ripen, which is an essential of development, 
Results may be hurried; processes may not be forced. They take their own time to mature. Were 
all instructors to realize that the quality of mental process, not the production of correct answers, 
is the measure of educative growth something hardly less than a revolution in teaching would be 
worked 

Dewey, John, Democracy and Education, pp. 204-206. 

While it is not the business of education to prove every statement made, any more than to teach 
every possible item of information, it is its business to cultivate deep-seated and effective habits 
of discriminating tested beliefs from mere assertions, guesses and opinions; to develop a lively, sin- 
cere and open-minded preference for conclusions that are properly grounded, and to ingrain into 
the individual’s working habits methods of inquiry and reasoning appropriate to the various prob- 
lems that present themselves. No matter how much an individual knows as a matter of hearsay 
and information, if he has not habits and attitudes of this sort, he is not intellectually educated. 
He lacks the rudiments of mental discipline. And since these habits are not a gift of nature (no 
matter how strong the aptitude for acquiring them); since, moreover, the casual circumstances of 
the natural and social environment are not enough to compel their acquisition, the main office of 
education is to supply conditions that make for their cultivation. The formation of these habits is 
the Training of the Mind. 

Dewey, John, How We Think, pp. 27, 28. 


4 The Measurement of Fair-Mindedness 


has pointed out the confining consequences of prejudice. Moreover 
he has made it clear that he is interested in a sort of open-minded- 
ness which is not empty-mindedness, but is akin to the meaning of 
‘“fair-mindedness”’ as used in these tests. 

One of the most popular presentations of this same idea is found 
in The Mind in the Making by James Harvey Robinson. The 
whole thesis of this luminous book is set forth in a clear-cut demand 
for a “critical, open-minded attitude” as the solution for most of 
the world’s ills. 

Speaking particularly from the viewpoint of the function of 
higher education, President E. M. Hopkins of Dartmouth College’ 
said: “‘It is one of the functions of the college to promote open- 
mindedness—a quality sorely needed today in a period of intolerance 
that is worse than any other in history.”’ 

It seems clear, then that any attempt to study open-mindedness 
will not be labor in a field which is deemed trivial and insignificant. 
Whatever may have been true of some aspects of educational 
measurement, certainly the construction of tests in this field will 
not be a business of testing simply for the fun of testing,—of sticking 
in prods to see what happens, quite regardless of the social and 
philosophical significance of the results, if any are attained. 

There remains another important question with regard to the 
worth of the enterprise. Some who would grant that the field is 
one in which social consequences are very significant might well 
ask: “‘But why tests? Why not experimentation to see what kinds 
of teaching, what subject matter, and mental training tend toward 
open-mindedness? Why not a treatise setting forth even more 
clearly the dangers of prejudice in modern society and an attempt 
to convince men, yes, to convert them?” 

In this field, as in every other, selection of desirable method waits 


6If some magical transformation could be produced in men’s ways of looking at themselves and 
their fellows, no inconsiderable part of the evils which now afflict society would vanish away or 
remedy themselves automatically. If the majority of influential persons held the opinions and 
occupied the point of view that a few rather uninfluential people now do, there would, for instance, 
be no likelihood of another great war; the whole problem of ‘labor and capital’ would be transformed 
and attenuated; national arrogance, race animosity, political corruption, and inefficiency would all 
be reduced below the danger point. As an old Stoic proverb has it, men are tormented by the opin- 
ions they have of things, rather than by the things themselves. This is eminently true of many of 
our worst problemstoday . . . 

I am not advocating any particular method of treating human affairs, but rather such a general 
frame of mind, such a critical, open-minded attitude, as has hitherto been but sparsely developed 
among those who aspire to be men’s guides, whether religious, political, economic, or academic. 

Robinson, J. H., The Mind in the Making, pp. 3, 12. ' 

TReported by the New York Sun, Dec. 4, 1924. 


The Need for Tests of Fair-Mindedness 5 


upon the creation of measuring instruments. Schools and theorists 
set forth their schemes; and one may appear effective, another 
quite hopeless, but there is no proof of the pudding without some 
standard by which the eater can make his judgment. 


Richards, in his presidential address before the American Association for 
the Advancement of Science said: ‘Plato recognized, long ago, in an often- 
quoted epigram, that when weights and measures are left out, little remains of 
any art. Modern science echoes this dictum in its insistence on quantitative 
data; science becomes more scientific as it becomes more exactly quantitative’’.® 
Before we can decide whether this course or that, whether lectur- 

ing or discussion, whether accusation or persuasion will be more 
effective in the creation of fair-mindedness, we must have first some 
method of telling in how great a degree this quality of mind is 
present before and after the application of these devices. 

‘After all,’’ some may say, ‘“‘while fair-mindedness is certainly 
an essential objective in the educative process, and while it is true 
that we must first have some method of judging as to how great a 
degree it is present, can we not tell by unrefined observation? Do 
not people know prejudiced persons from fair-minded persons? 
Can not people tell you themselves the points at which they are 
prejudiced and those at which they are open-minded?” 

All of the evidence seems to indicate that such commonsense 
judgments are highly unreliable. Probably the best study of the 
reliability of ratings on traits of character has been made by Rugg.?® 
After an exhaustive study under conditions unusually favorable 
he finds that character ratings are valid only when (1) the ratings 
are made by three or more independent judges, (2) who have been , 
trained under a leader skilled in scaling so that they are in perfectly 
clear agreementas to thescale being used, and (3) who are thoroughly 
acquainted with the subjects. These conditions can very rarely 
be fulfilled. ‘‘A single rating by a typical school officer will only 
rarely locate a person within his proper ‘fifth’ of the entire scale.”’ 
“Hence the apparently dogmatic answer to the question, ‘Can human 
character be rated on point scales accurately enough for practical 
uses in education?’ No! It would be far better to give our energies 
to the attempt to measure it objectively than to make subjective 
judgments on point scales. The point cannot be made too emphatic 
that we should discard these loose methods of rating once and for 


8Quoted by W. A. McCall in How to Measure in Education p. 8. W 
9Rugg, H. O., Journal of Educational Psychology, Feb.-Nov. 1921. 


6 The Measurement of Fatr-Mindedness 


all.’”’ It does not seem probable that we may hope for any greater 
reliability in ratings of fair-mindedness than he has there discovered 
with reference to intelligence, leadership, industry, team-work, etc. 
If we include self-ratings, we may well expect less validity. Dewey, 
in a recent lecture, said, ‘‘It is of the very nature of prejudice that it 
is largely unconscious. Everyone is pretty sure that the matters 
which seem to us to be our prejudices, aren’t.”’ 

Further light in the same direction came from an investigation 
carried on for other purposes, described here on pages 25 and 26. 
One individual, who was rated by a number of the students who were 
in classes with him as one of the most fair-minded persons in the 
school, was described by an intimate friend as “perfectly hopeless’’ 
in his extremism and prejudice upon a number of religious and 
economic issues. ‘‘Conclusions which he has drawn by ‘intuition’ 
he is willing to die for, however incongruous they may be with the 
results of his rational thinking.’’ Another person described this 
same individual as ‘‘one of the most lovable personalities I have 
ever dealt with, but quite likely to go off half-cocked on some new 
idea.’’ In this case at least, there seems to be clear evidence of what 
Thorndike has called the “‘halo effect.’’ 

Again, evidence comes from a class of eighteen normal school 
students studying educational measurements, who were asked to 
rank themselves and other members of the class on open-mind- 
edness. They did it under protest, saying they did not trust their 
ratings, but they did try to do it conscientiously. The ratings which 
a pupil gave himself yield a correlation of .o7 with the average 
ratings which he was given by the other members of the class. 
Fifteen of the eighteen pupils were given ranks which ranged from 
3 to 17, or further. 

A little more evidence is found in the vote of students and faculty 
members of two institutions with regard to the two most open- 
minded members of their group. While there was considerable 
agreement upon a few individuals, the remainder of the votes 
scattered to include 73 per cent. as many individuals as there were 
persons voting and an average of 51 per cent. of the possible choices 
in each group. 

While all of this evidence may not be conclusive and there is 
need for further study of the conditions under which ratings in this 
field will be reliable, this evidence does make it clear that in general 
such ratings are not dependable or trustworthy. If they are to 


The Need for Tests of Fatr-Mindedness 7 


be proven useful at all, the proof itself will require a test, the validity 
and reliability of which have already been established. 

In general, there seems to be clear evidence that there is a need 
and demand for a type of education which shall bring about pro- 
gress toward fair-mindedness. Such progress is at best, uncertain, 
until some instrument can be constructed which will measure the 
degree to which fair-mindedness, or freedom from bias, has been 
achieved. 

The construction of such a test, however, is not wholly in the 
interests of those who wish to promote fair-mindedness as an educa- 
tional objective. While the author finds himself in very great sym- 
pathy with this point of view, the test itself is an equally good 
instrument for those who believe fair-mindedness undesirable upon 
certain questions. There is no attempt here to insist that fair-mind- 
edness rather than prejudice is desirable. Many competent persons 
feel that upon certain questions the reverse is true. From either 
point of view the test should prove useful. It merely indicates 
what the situation is within the individual at the time at which 
the test is administered. In the light of this evidence, the educator 
can more discriminatingly select methods which will lead in the 
direction in which he deems it desirable to work. 

In order to make the problem compassable, the issues with which 
this test deals have been limited to religious and economic issues, 
including in the former certain “‘moral,’’ or “‘amusement’’ questions 
which have become tied up with religious sanctions. The choice 
of these two types of issue as the field in which to work was deter- 
mined in part by the author’s interest, but in large degree by a 
realization of the tremendous consequences of prejudice and in- 
tolerance, as contrasted with fair-open-scientific-mindedness in 
these realms. 


CHAPTER IT 
THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE TESTS 


In the endeavor to construct tests which shall objectively measure 
fair-mindedness, there are two obvious dangers. One is that the 
test shall be a measure of agreement with the opinions of the per- 
son who constructs the test. It is all too easy to feel that those who 
differ radically from our own point of view are thereby showing 
strong prejudice. A second danger is that the test shall prove to 
be merely a measure of convictions, a test of opinions reasonably 
arrived at and held with a fair degree of confidence. 

To avoid these dangers, these tests were constructed to measure 
prejudice defined as: Any tendencies, however produced, (a) 
to cross out, as distasteful, terms which represent one side or another 
of religious or economic controversies; (b) to call sincere and com- 
petent persons who hold different opinions on religious and economic 
issues incompetent or insincere; (c) to draw from given evidence 
conclusions which support one’s bias but which are not justified 
by that evidence; (d) to condemn in a group which is disliked, 
activities which would be condoned or approved in some other 
group; (e) to regard arguments, some of which are really strong 
and others of which are really weak, as all strong if they be in 
accord with the subject’s bias, or all weak if they run counter to 
that bias; and (f) to attribute to all the people or objects in a group, 
characteristics which belong to only a portion of that group. Most 
of the tests were so constructed that opinions could be expressed 
on either side of the issue without going to the extreme of registering 
one of the tendencies which have been defined as prejudices. All 
of the tests were so constructed that prejudice or lack of fair-mind- 
edness could be registered upon several aspects of each of the 
religious and economic issues considered. One might be prejudiced, 
for example, in the direction of fundamentalism, or of modernism, 
or of radicalism upon religious questions. 

Form A, the Word Cross Out Test, is based upon the principle 
employed by Pressey, that a tendency to cross out an unusually 
large number of words, feeling that they are annoying or distasteful, 
is an indication of some sort of emotional set, or conditioning. The 
following are typical of the fifty-one words included in this test: 


The Construction of the Tests 9 


Bolshevist Dancing 
Mystic Holy Communion 
Sunday Blue Laws Unitarian 


Form B, the Degree of Truth Test, consists of a collection of 
statements about religious and economic matters, upon each of 
which it would be possible to find sincere and competent authori- 
ties in disagreement. The following are typical of the fifty-three 
statements included in this test: 

The churches are more sympathetic with capital than with labor. 

Jesus was more interested in social, than in individual salvation. 

Poor men cannot get justice in the courts today. 

The ordinary Catholic priest is well above the average in his community, 
so far as learning and good judgment are concerned. 

Prohibition, in the experience of the United States, has been a failure. 


In each case, the subject is given the opportunity, by checking 
on a scale, to say that each statement is: 
(2)—so true that no one with a fair understanding of the subject could sin- 
cerely and honestly believe it false. 
(1)—probably true, or true in large degree. 
(o)—uncertain, or doubtful. 
(-1)—probably false, or false in large degree. 
(—2)—-so false that no one with a fair understanding of the subject could sin- 
cerely and honestly believe it true. 


The emphatic portions of the first and last positions are under- 
lined in the directions, so that people will be more certain to notice 
the extreme character of the statement. Both this test and the 
Form A test, force many thoughtful individuals into a dilemma, 
neither horn of which is wholly satisfactory. For some reasons 
they wish to cross a given word out, for other reasons they would 
prefer not to. They cannot compromise here. Likewise in the 
Form B test, they dislike to admit that the statement is only prob- 
ably true or false but they hesitate to go the full length of the 
extreme position. The theory of the test is that in such an un- 
comfortable situation, the choice is more than ordinarily significant. 

Form C, the Inference Test, presents a statement of fact, followed 
by several conclusions which some persons might draw from that 
fact. Thus, for example, it is stated: 

I. Statistics show that in the United States, of one hundred men starting 


out at an age of 25, at the end of forty years, one will be wealthy, while fifty- 
four will be dependent upon relatives or charity for support. 


10 The Measurement of Fair-Mindedness 


[] The present social order cheats the many for the benefit of the few. 


[] The average young man, under present conditions, cannot count on being 
wealthy at the age of 65. 


L) Most men are shiftless, lazy, or extravagant, otherwise they would not need 
to be dependent. 


[] The one man is living upon luxuries ground out of the bones of the masses 
of common people. 


[]Some day the workers will rise in revolt. 


LI No such conclusion can fairly be drawn. 


The subjects are asked to check only such conclusions as are 
established by the facts given in the statement above, drawing 
upon no other evidence. They are warned to check only those infer- 
ences which are certain,—none that are merely probable. It is per- 
missible to check either the final alternative under each case, stating 
that none of the conclusions can fairly be drawn, or else that one 
in each case (the second, in this example) which is merely an in- 
nocuous repetition of the evidence given in the preliminary state- 
ment. 

Form D, the Moral Judgments Test, consists of fifteen instances, 
with an opportunity beneath each, to approve the act, to declare it 
a matter of indifference, or to disapprove of it. Each instance in 
the test is parallel to one or two other instances in the type of situa- 
tion it presents. Thus, ‘‘faith cures’’ are presented, once through 
the medium of a Japanese idol, once at a Roman Catholic shrine, 
and once under the leadership of a Protestant evangelist. In 
another instance unwarranted search is made of a suspected “‘radi- 
cal’’ headquarters, while in another, the same procedure is carried 
out with a big business corporation, suspected of dishonesty. These 
instances are, of course, scattered through the test so as to conceal 
as far as possible the parallelism. It matters not, for the purposes 
of the test, whether the subject shall approve, be indifferent to, 
or disapprove, the action in any situation, if only he will be con- 
sistent in the parallel act under slightly different circumstances. 

Form E, the Arguments Test, is based upon the tendency of 
an individual to feel that all of the arguments upon his side of the 
case are strong, while those on the opposite side are weak, irrelevant, 
or very easily refuted. Twelve issues, such as the desirability of 
the Roman Catholic church, the probability of immortality, the 
usefulness of the Ku Klux Klan, etc., were selected. Upon each 
were gathered the principal arguments used by persons supporting 


The Construction of the Tests II 


each side of the question. Some were presumed to be weak, while 
others seemed to the author to be strong. After selection by a 
few seminar groups, the arguments were submitted to a group of 
twelve judges, chosen because of their supposed ability to rate 
‘religious and economic arguments fairly. They included a pro- 
fessor of philosophy, a professor of education, a professor of econo- 
mics, a professor of sociology, two professors of public speaking and 
argumentation, two teachers of religious education in different 
institutions, one leader in inter-denominational activities in the 
industrial field, a member of the International Committee of the 
Y.M.C.A.anda psychologist. Extraordinary difficulty was found 
in getting any unanimity. Arguments had to be revised, and re- 
submitted. Apparently, wide deviations in judgment occurred, 
less because of bias on the question as a whole, than because of 
unusual reactions to some feature of the premise in the argument. 
For example, certain judges were not greatly concerned by the 
fact that the particular argument favored the child labor law, 
but did seem to be influenced by the fact that the premise contained 
the word profit, or employer or farmer. 

No argument was finally retained in the test upon which there 
were less than 75 per cent. of the judges in agreement. As further 
evidence, twelve of the most fair-minded persons, as recorded by 
the other forms of the test, were studied to see how well their 
opinions agreed with the judges. The results are tabulated in 
Table III of the Appendix. It is not at all improbable that many 
capable students of each issue will look over the ratings given to 
arguments by other sane and capable individuals, and find them- 
selves dismayed. Few, if any, individuals have been discovered 
who do not differ emphatically from the great mass of their fellow 
students, on some of these arguments. 

Form F, the Generalization Test,contains a number of general- 
izations about Jews, ministers, I. W. W.’s, business men, miracles, 
missionaries, etc. Each of these generalizations is true of some of 
the members of the group, but not of all of the members. The sub- 
ject is given a chance to say that the statements are true of “‘All, 
Most, Many, Few, or No”’ members of the group. Any answer 
except ‘‘All”’ or ‘‘No” is accepted, and ignored in the scoring. 

Each of these test-forms has been revised six, seven, or, in some 
instances, ten times. Preposterous as some of them may seem, no 
items were retained which were not reacted to in the extreme pre}j- 


12 The Measurement of Fatr-Mindedness 


udice form, by several individuals among the first two hundred 
to take the test. 

At the close of the six test-forms is appended a personal data 
sheet, asking for sex, age, occupation, education, religious training, 
occupation of father, and years of residence in communities of less 
than 5,000 people, and more than 100,000 people. The tests may 
be anonymous, or the name of the subject may be signed. Usually 
a key, in which the subject can recognize and recover his own paper 
is desirable. 

A brief Manual of Directions is published separately, giving 
the purpose of the tests, the results of standardization, directions 
for giving the tests, and for obtaining the gross score. This Manual 
of Directions, together with complete copies of the test and full 
directions for finding both the gross score and the analytical score, 
may be obtained from the Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, 
Columbia University, New York. 


CHAPTER RELL 
THE SCORING OF THE TESTS 


Two methods for scoring the tests have been developed. First, v¥ 
the tests may be scored to find the general level of prejudice within 
the individual or group. In determining this “‘gross score”’ the 
examiner is not concerned with the direction which particular 
prejudices take, nor with the strength of economic as compared to . 
religious prejudices, etc. The second method of scoring, while more 
expensive and complicated is more rewarding. The ‘‘analytical 
score”’ thus obtained, indicates the extent to which the prejudices / 
of the subject are in agreement with the special interests of cap- 
italists, or of economic liberals, or of economic radicals, or of funda- 
mentalists, or of Roman Catholics, etc. Twelve types of bias 
are used as the basis of classification. 

The Gross Score may be objectively determined in accord with 
the specific directions given in the manual. In brief, the scoring 
method is: 

Form A: One point for each word crossed out. 

Form B: Three points for each extreme statement. 

Form C: Four points for each unjustified conclusion. 

Form D: Three points for being indifferent to an act in one case, while approv- 

. ing or disapproving the parallel act; five points for approving in one 
case and condemning in the other. 

Form E: Four points for any question upon which all the arguments on one 
side of a question have been rated either strong or weak, while all, 
or all but one, of the arguments on the opposite side have been given 
the reverse rating. 

Form F: Three points for making the “‘ All’’ or ‘‘No”’ generalization about any 
case. 


This yields a total of 489 possible points. The score, whether 
for a single form, or for the test as a whole should be expressed in 
terms of the per cent. of the total possible opportunities to show 
prejudice, to which the subject has reacted. Thus, a very fair- if 
minded person may score only 49 points all told, a gross score of 
ten per cent. ‘A very prejudiced person may take sixty or seventy 
per cent. of the chances to manifest a prejudice. 

It will be noticed that in obtaining the gross score the tests have 
been weighted as follows: Each error in Test A has been penalized 


14 The Measurement of Fair-Mindedness 


one point, each error in Test B three points, in Test C four points, 
in Test D three or five points, depending upon the amount of in- 
consistency; in Test E four points, and in Test F three points. 
These weightings were arbitrarily assigned in accord with the opin- 
ions of two groups of graduate students who took the tests, suggested 
revisions, and analyzed their own reactions. The principal result 
of this weighting has been to decrease the influence of Test A in 
the composite of tests. Thus, it requires the checking of three 
words on Test A to contribute as much to the total score as the 
circling of one extreme statement in Test B or Test F. 

The resultant score, however, is not greatly changed by this 
method of weighting. If each prejudice reaction in each test be 
given only one point, and if the per cent. on each test be computed 
and the results averaged, then neither the point weighting nor the 
length of the test influences directly the result. The influence 
of each form will be determined only by its standard deviation. 
The standard deviations for the gross scores on each of the six 
test forms are given in Table IV in the Appendix. 

The correlation between the gross scores yielded by this method 
of weighting with the scores yielded by the weighting used regularly 
in the tests is .QI +.006. 

The Analytical Score. The second purpose for which the tests 
may be scored is to answer the question: ‘‘Along what particular 
religious or economic lines is this individual prejudiced, and howY 
strong is the prejudice in each of the outstanding lines?”’ For this 
' purpose each test element has been classified as ‘“‘The sort of re- 
sponse which a typical capitalist might make,” or “‘the sort of 
response which a typical Roman Catholic would probably make,”’ 
or “‘the sort of response which some other religious or economic 
type might make.’’ This, it will be noted, does not say that every 
person who makes that response zs necessarily a capitalist or a 
Roman Catholic or a religious radical or some other type. It says, 
merely, that to the extent of that reaction the subject is 7 agree- 
ment with the typical capitalist or Roman Catholic, etc. Thus, 
for example, one’s reason for crossing out ‘‘Ku Klux Klan” in Test 
A may be something very different from a prejudice in the direction 
of Roman Catholicism, but to the extent of that reaction the in- 
dividual is in agreement with the typical Roman Catholic. 

If the test is used to study the prejudices in any individual or 
group with reference to direction as well as amount, then a copy 


The Scoring of the Tests 15 


of the Analytical Score Sheet! will be needed for each individual 
taking the test. 

The Analytical Score will tell to what extent the prejudices 
manifested by the subject are in agreement with each of the fol- 
lowing points of view: 


. Economic radicals. 
. Economic liberals. 
. Economic capitalists. 
. Persons fighting for a ‘‘social gospel,’’ rather than an individual interpreta- 
tion. 
5. Persons interested mainly in a ‘‘personal gospel,’’ prayer, mysticism, 
communion, salvation, etc. 
6. Fundamentalists, orthodox ‘‘ Apostles’ Creed”’ variety. 
. Modernists, holding liberal Christian views. 
. Religious radicals, very broad, displeased with most existing Christian 
manifestations of religion. 
g. Protestants who are inclined not to like Catholics. 
10. Catholics who are inclined not to like Protestants. 
11. Persons with high, strict standards of sex-ethics, or amusement, or ‘‘bad 
habits,’’ or similar moral matters. 
12. Persons with broad loose standards of sex-ethics, or amusement, or ‘‘ bad 
habits’’ or similar moral matters. 


- WN 


co “NI 


In all of the forms of the tests which were used in obtaining the 
results here published, eighteen typical lines of bias were used. 
Later, it was discovered that the last six somewhat duplicated the 
classification made in the first twelve and to save the extra scoring 
labor the following six were omitted: ; 

13. Bias against economic capitalism and the status quo in business. 

14. Bias against economic radicals. 

15. Bias against orthodox Apostles’ Creed fundamentalists. 

16. Bias against liberals and radicals in religious matters. 

17. Bias against anything that seems unscientific, mysterious, superstitious 


or magical. 
18. Bias against every religion and everything having to do with religion. 


A convenient method of representing the analytical score for 
an individual is the prejudice profile. (See pages 46 to 62 in the 
Appendix). The per cent. of opportunities that agree with an econo- 
mic radical which was taken by each individual is represented by 
the distance from left to right between the base line (zero per cent.) 
and the vertical profile line. So, likewise, the per cent. of prejudice 


1Obtainable at Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University, New York City. 


16 The Measurement of Fair-Mindedness 


in agreement with an economic liberal, a capitalist, a supporter 
of the social gospel, etc., is represented in each case by the distance 
between the base line and the profile. Obviously, the outstanding 
lines of prejudice are represented by the columns which protrude 
farthest to the right. 

It may seem confusing that almost every individual should 
register some prejudice along each of these lines and that many 
individuals seem to agree with contrasting points of view. This 
is due to the fact that the analytical scoring and the prejudice 
profile do not necessarily show the reason for any prejudice but 
only the extent to which that prejudice is in agreement with some 
types of individuals. Almost everyone has some points at which 
he is in agreement with his worst enemies. A rabid fundamentalist, 
for example, may be bitterly prejudiced against Catholics, but at 
the same time he may share with them a prejudice in favor of the 
Virgin Birth. In general, however, a person who shows a consider- 
able amount of agreement with each of the contrasting points of 
view seems to be the type of individual whose reactions are not 
clear-cut, but who is prejudiced now against this and now against 
that, according as he may have heard the view advocated by a 
person with an unpleasant appearance or seen it referred to in a 
denunciatory fashion in some newspaper. 

Grievous errors in the interpretations of the profiles will occur 
unless it is kept clearly in mind that the analytical score and the 
prejudice profile do not pretend to register the reasons under- 
lying prejudice manifestation. This is particularly true in the case 
of small per cents. of prejudice. A low per cent. of prejudice with 
which a typical capitalist would agree may be due to very great 
fair-mindedness on the part of the subject, or may be due toa strong 
prejudice against capitalists or capitalism. Only the outstanding 
lines of prejudice, those which, on the profile, extend out markedly 
' to the right, beyond the general run of the analytical scores, are to be 
considered clearly significant. An individual who takes forty or 
fifty per cent. of the opportunities to agree in prejudices with a 
typical Roman Catholic but who takes only fifteen or twenty per 
cent. of the opportunities to agree in prejudices with the other types 
represented in this scoring, is very likely, indeed, to be prejudiced 
in favor of Roman Catholicism, Strong evidence for validity 
exists only for the three or four largest and most marked elements 
in the analytical score of each person and group. 


The Scoring of the Tests 17 


An important variation of the prejudice profile is its use to show 
group characteristics. If a number of individuals in some group 
be tested, their analytical scores be computed, and the average 
score along each of the lines of bias be found, then this series of 
averages may be graphed, giving a prejudice profile for the group. 
Similarly, two or more groups may be compared and their out- 
standing differences in prejudice graphically recorded by super- 
imposing one group profile upon the other. (See pages 69 to 84 
inthe Appendix). 


CHARDERSIN 
WHAT DO THE TESTS REALLY MEASURE? . 


Reliability. A necessary preliminary question is: Do the tests 
measure any single attribute, or are they a heterogeneous collection 
of reactions in which a person might respond one way at one time 
and a different way at another time? The answer to this question 
must be stated in terms of reliability,—that is to say, in terms of 
the correlation between the score made by a person on taking the 
test at one time and the score which he would make if he were to 
take it again under exactly the same circumstances, practice effect 
being eliminated. | 

The reliability of the general level of prejudice indicated by the 
gross score was computed by finding the score which would be 
obtained by half the test (Items I, 3, 5, 7, etc.), and the correla- 
tion of that score with the score obtained by using the other half 
of the tests (Items 2, 4, 6, 8, etc.).. Thirty papers, selected to give 
a normal distribution, yielded a self-correlation of .92 + .02. For 
61 papers the self-correlation was .89 + .o15. For 70 additional 
papers the self-correlation was .96 -+ .ooI. These correlations 
indicate the relationship to be expected between one-half of the 
test and the other half of the test. Applying the Spearman-Brown 
Prophecy Formula we find that it is to be expected that the cor- 
relation between one administration of the test and another admin- 
istration under the same circumstances might reasonably be ex- 
pected to be .96. 

Occasionally, as in the studies at Lake Geneva (see page 37) 
Forms A, B, and C are given at one time and Forms D, E, and F 
at another time. The correlation between one-half of each of these 
tests with the other half of the same tests has been computed for 
189 papers to be .82 for Tests A, B, and C and .68 for Tests D, 
E, and F. Again, using the Spearman-Brown Prophecy Formula, 
the self-correlation for Forms A, B, and C is found to be .90; that 
for Forms D, E, and F is found to be .81. 

Sometimes, in order to obtain very rapidly a notion of the general 
prejudice status of a group a single form may be used. The self- 
correlation for the general gross score indicated by each of the forms 
is indicated in Table V in the Appendix. 


What Do the Tests Really Measure? 19 


The next question is: How reliable are the various lines of bias 
indicated in the diagnostic score? The reactions along each of the 
twelve (previously eighteen) lines of bias may be studied just as 
though each one were a test in itself. Reactions I, 3, 5, 7, etc., 
may be correlated with reactions 2, 4, 6, 8, etc. The results of 
this study are indicated in Table VI in the Appendix. 

Qther things being equal, a large number of items will yield a 
higher reliability than will a small number of items, In order to 
discover how far the differences in reliability indicated in Table 
VI are due merely to the fact that there are more items in one 
direction of bias than there are in some other direction of bias, the 
last column on the right has been corrected by the Prophecy For- 
mula to a statement in terms of the probable self-r for 200 such 
points. Within the 12 lines of bias now used for diagnosis there 
is a variation of from .60 to .88,—not a very significant difference. 

Vahdity. Evidently the tests afford a consistent measure of 
something, or, at least, a measure which is as consistent as that 
afforded by many tests upon which educators place some reliance. 
The crucial question is: What is that something—is it really fair- 
mindedness? Six lines of study have been carried on to answer this 
question: 

First, the tests themselves are examined with reference to what 
they seem to be measuring. 

Second, the correlations between each form of the test and the 
test as a whole are obtained. 

Third, a study is made of the scores obtained by individuals 
who are selected by their group as most fair-minded. 

Fourth, individuals who are supposed, by those who know them 
well, to have pronounced lines of prejudice, are given the test, and 
their reactions compared with those which would be anticipated. 
This same study includes the analysis of their own scores made 
by a number of individuals who are accustomed to testing methods 
and to a reasonable objectivity of mind. 

Fifth, certain groups\who might be supposed to possess certain 
lines of prejudice are studied by the test and the results compared 
with the assumptions of competent judges as to the lines of prejudice 
which might be expected to exist within the given groups. 

Sixth, an examination is made of the extent to which the tests 
may be a measure of intelligence or of opinion rather than of 
prejudice. 


20 The Measurement of Fatr-Mindedness 


1. From the standpoint of their construction and their scoring 
what do the tests seem to measure? Consider first Form A, the 
Word Cross-Out Test. This is based upon a principle which has 
been well standardized by Pressey and other students of controlled 
association, who state that any tendency to cross out, as disagreeable 
or annoying, a considerable number of words of one type or meaning, 
is an indication of some emotional instability with reference to 
that field. Of course, it must be freely admitted that on its face 
value the crossing out of a word or of even two or three similar 
words is not necessarily correlative with a lack of fair-mindedness 
in connection with the subject represented by the words. It might 
however be supposed that it would be more difficult for a person 
to deal fairly with subjects which he found distasteful and annoy- 
ing. Some persons found introspectively that this test-form re- 
vealed prejudices of which they had not previously been conscious. 
(See Profile No. 26, Appendix). Also, it was found to be the fair- 
minded, discriminating individuals who were most annoyed by the 
test. They could not decide in any case what to do. For certain 
reasons, they wished to cross the word out. For certain other 
reasons, they wished to leave it unchecked. The usual result was 
that a small number was crossed out. On the other hand, many 
persons found it no problem. They checked word after word with 
decided emphasis. One Y. M. C. A. leader, noted-for his strong 
prejudices, exclaimed after crossing out two-thirds of the words, 
‘“That’s the most annoying list of words I ever saw in my life!”’ 

Form B, the Degree of Truth Test, registers the tendency of 
an individual to hold such extreme views on doubtful issues that 
he is willing to call those who differ from him incompetent or in- 
sincere. If a subject believes any one of the statements in the test 
to be true he is forced into the position of classifying it as ‘‘ probably 
true,’’ or else, ‘‘so true that no one with a fair understanding of the 
subject could sincerely and honestly believe it false.’’ The tendency 
of a prejudice to manifest itself in this fashion was recognized by 
Locke in his statement: 

That which is inconsistent with our principles is so far from passing for 
probable with us that it will not be allowed possible. The reference borne to 
these principles is so great, and their authority so paramount to all other, that 
the testimony, not only of other men, but the evidence of our own senses are 
often rejected, when they offer to vouch anything contrary to these established 


HELES He ha There is nothing more ordinary than children receiving into their 
minds propositions... .from their parents, nurses, or those about them, which 


What Do the Tests Really Measure? 21 


being insinuated into their unwary as well as unbiased understandings and 
fastened by degrees, are at last (and this whether true or false) riveted there by 
long custom and education, beyond all possibility of being pulled out again. 
For men, when they are grown up, reflecting upon their opinions and finding 
those of this sort to be as ancient in their minds as their very memories, not 
having observed their early insinuation, nor by what means they got them, 
they are apt to reverence them as sacred things, and not to suffer them to be 
profaned, touched or questioned. 


Trotter in his Instincts of the Herd describes vividly the kind 
of prejudice which is likely to manifest itself in the Form B Test. 
When, therefore, we find ourselves entertaining an opinion about the basis of 
which there is a quality of feeling which tells us that to inquire into it would 
be absurd, obviously unnecessary, unprofitable, undesirable, bad form, or 
wicked, we may know that that opinion is a non-rational one, and probably, 
therefore, founded upon inadequate evidence? 


There is further evidence that outstanding progress in science 
and in philosophy has waited upon the individual who is willing 
to admit that there may be truth in points of view not commonly 
held in his environment and that the judgment of others is worthy 
of respect, whether they agree with his own conclusions or not. 

Form C, the Inference Test, illustrates in miniature the practice 
of the soap-box orator who reels off a list of facts and statistics and 
proceeds to draw from them conclusions which support his point 
of view but which have only a very flimsy connection with the 
evidence he has offered. Persons who have supposed that human 
beings, when presented with the ‘“‘facts in the case,’’ would be led 
by those facts to a rational and united conclusion have been abruptly 
disillusioned if they have made any attempt to verify this with 
groups of varied background and opinion. Students of the thinking 
process have long been familiar with this tendency. Dewey 
summarized the conclusions of many in the following statements: 


What a person has not only daily and hourly, but momentary need of per- 
forming, is not a technical and abstruse matter; nor, on the other hand, is it 
trivial and negligible. Such a function must be congenial to the mind, and must 
be performed, in an unspoiled mind, upon every fitting occasion. Just because, 
however, it is an operation of drawing inferences, of basing conclusions upon 
evidence, of reaching belief izdirectly, it is an operation that may go wrong as 
well as right, and hence is one that needs safeguarding and training. The 
greater its importance, the greater are the evils when it is ill-exercised. 


1Quoted by Dewey, John, How We Think, p. 24. 
2Trotter, W., Instincts of the Herd, p. 44. 


22 The Measurement of Fair-Mindedness 


Conclusions may be generated by a modicum of fact merely because the 
suggestions are vivid and interesting; a large accumulation of data may fail 
to suggest a proper conclusion because existing customs are adverse to en- 
tertaining it. 

Secondly, next to these are men whose understandings are cast into a mold 
and fashioned just to the size of a received hypothesis. Such men, Locke 
goes on to say, while not denying the existence of facts and evidence, can not 
be convinced by the evidence that would decide them if their minds were not 
so closed by adherence to fixed belief.’ 


In Form D, the Moral Judgment Test, one of the most easily 
recognized manifestations of prejudice is recorded. If an individual 
condemns the socialists for passing out leaflets through the neigh- 
borhood and then whole-heartedly volunteers to assist his church 
in leaving a leaflet in front of every door in the neighborhood, it 
does not seem too much to say that he is lacking in fair-minded- 
ness on that issue. So, likewise, with the man who approves a 
raid of radical headquarters but is quite indignant at the thought 
of raiding a corporation on a suspicion that its financial transactions 
have been shady, it would be commonly assumed that he possessed 
a degree of prejudice on that issue. This test seems to offer almost 
prima facie evidence of its validity. 

Form E, the Arguments Test, registers the tendency familiar 
to every propagandist and debator to feel that the arguments on 
his side of the case are strong and convincing and that those of the 
opponents, to each of which he feels he possesses a perfectly ade- 
quate answer, are quite trivial, irrelevant, or hardly worth con- 
sidering. Again, Locke’s insight led him to recognize this hindrance 
to philosophical thought: 


This kind is of those who put passion in the place of reason, and being re- 
solved that that shall govern their actions and arguments, neither use their 
own, nor hearken to other people’s reason, any farther, than it suits their 
humor, interest, or party. 


Jevons points out that 
It is exceedingly rare to find persons who can with perfect fairness estimate 
and register facts for or against their own particular views and theories.’ 
While with children this tendency is present in a very obvious 
and ndive form, with adults many things besides the conclusion 


3Dewey, John, How We Think, pp. 18-19. 
‘Jevons, Wm. S., Principles of Science, Vol. II, p. 5. 


What Do the Tests Really Measure? 23 


to which the argument leads tend to influence their decisions. 
This was illustrated by the difficulty experienced in finding argu- 
ments so obviously strong or obviously weak that fair-minded 
persons would recognize that strength or weakness. (See page II.) 

Therefore, only a coarse grading is used upon this question and 
a variation from the opinions of the judges is not regarded as evi- 
dence of prejudices until it affects so many arguments that all on 
one side are regarded as strong or as weak; and all on the opposite 
side, or all but one of those on the opposite side, are given a con- 
trasting rating. 

Form F, the Generalization Test, rests upon what may be termed 
the ‘‘one-swallow-makes-a-summer’”’ fallacy. This test registers 
the tendency in individuals to say that all Jews would cheat, that 
no church members are violating the Volstead Act, that all Roman 
Catholics are superstitious or that none of them are, and so on,— 
attributing to all the members of a group characteristics which 
are true of only a part of the group. It has been rather clearly 
demonstrated by the testimony of a number of individuals that 
they acquired some of their race-prejudice in a single instance, or 
two, and afterwards reacted to all members of the race in terms 
of the conditioning of the single experience. (See the modification 
of this test for use in measuring fair-mindedness on race-relations, 
page 41.) 

In general, then, it is evident that these tests may be validated 
in the way in which examinations in school subjects always used 
to be validated and in the way in which many tests are now vali- 
dated. Why is this an arithmetic test? Because it contains 
arithmetic problems and people who can do this sort of trick would 
naturally be good in arithmetic! Why is this a geography test? 
Because on their face the questions deal with geography! Why is 
this a spelling test? Because the reactions registered are in terms 
of ability to spell! It is only reasonable to expect that any persons, 
for whom arithmetic and geography and spelling tests are validated 
because of the material they contain, will regard these tests of 
fair-mindedness as sufficiently validated by the evidence offered 
above. The fact, however, that such evidence is often misleading 
requires that a thorough demonstration of validity shall proceed 
further. \ 

2. It is quite possible that some persons will feel fairly well 
convinced that the majority of the tests give indications of prej- 


24 The Measurement of Fair-Mindedness 


udice as contrasted with fair-mindedness, but feel skeptical about 
one of the forms. Form A is particularly subject to this criticism. 
The answer to all such objections must be in terms of correlation, 
whatever the test may appear on the surface to demonstrate. If 
one of the tests really does measure the same thing which the rest 
of the forms measure, then it is as valid as they are, even though 
it appears to common sense to be a record of opinions, of reading 
ability, or of stolidity. In Table VII in the Appendix are given 
the data for correlation between the gross scores obtained by using 
the whole test and those which would be obtained by each of the 
forms. These data are-given first for forty papers and then for 
one hundred nineteen additional papers. In the raw form they 
range from .45 to.86. Corrected for attenuation so as to indicate 
the true correlation between the reaction indicated by one form 
of the test and the reaction indicated by the total, the correlations 
range from .53 to .94. 

Of course, in these correlations each test form is included in the 
total with which the separate form is correlated. If the correlation 
be made between one test-form and the average score on the other five 
forms, then the resulting correlations range from .11 to .42. (See 
Table VIII in the Appendix). 

Since these tests really measure manifestations quite different 
in form, of a quality of prejudice or fair-mindedness which has 
popularly been assumed to be a more or less homogeneous unity, 
it is probably fair to compare these intercorrelations with those 
existing between. the various manifestations of arithmetical ability 
or reading ability, or intelligence. McCall> finds a correlation 
between addition and general arithmetical ability of .12 in one class 
and .34 in another group. The same study shows an uncorrected 
correlation between reading ability and visual vocabulary, of .15 
in one case, .40 in another, .45 in another, and .60 in a fourth. 
Steacy in ‘‘Inter-Relations of Mental Abilities” finds a correlation 
between various manifestations of arithmetical ability with other 
manifestations varying from .16 to .42, or, when corrected for 
attenuation, from .36 to .94, the last correlation existing between 
ability to subtract and ability to divide. A study by Burt on ‘‘The 
Distribution and Relation of Educational Abilities’? published by 
the London County Council indicates a correlation between knowl- 
edge of arithmetical rules and ability to do problems of .76; a 


5McCall, W. A., The Correlation of Some Psychological and Educational Measurements, 1916. 


What Do the Tests Really Measure? 25 


correlation between speed of reading and comprehension of reading 
of .69; and a correlation between speed of writing and quality of 
writing of .30. The author studied a group of 30 of the same students 
who were studied by the tests of fair-mindedness, using the Thorn- 
dike-McCall Reading Scale. He found a correlation between speed 
of reading and comprehension of reading of .21. Probably the most 
comparable test is the Pintner Non-Language Test for Intelligence 
in which the correlation between each test and the composite was 
studied by Dorothy R. Morgenthau.* She found the correlation 
between individual tests and the composite score to vary from 
.40 to .76. 

It seems fair, therefore, to conclude that each form of this test 
is as closely related to the purpose of the test as a whole, as are the 
various items in an intelligence test to the score of the test as a 
whole; and that the forms are more closely related in these tests 
of fair-mindedness than is commonly the case in testing various 
forms of arithmetical ability, reading ability, writing ability, and. 
the like. 

Sometimes it may be desirable to use one form of the test 
as a substitute for the test as a whole, and to obtain with this an 
analyzed score. In such cases it is useful to know how well each 
form of the test correlates with the test as a whole, in the diagnosis 
which it offers. This relationship was studied in two ways. First, 
on each of 119 cases, the diagnosis given by each form of the test 
was correlated with the diagnosis given by the test asa whole. The 
resulting 714 correlations were worked out by the Rho method, and 
transmuted into terms of Pearson’s r. The average correlations 
of the analytical score on one form of the test, and the analytical 
score given by the complete battery, range from .48 to .61 as in- 
dicated in Table IX in the Appendix. Second, the correlation 
between the per cent. score on each of the analyzed lines of prejudice 
as indicated by one form, and the corresponding score yielded by 
the complete test was computed for 40 papers, covering 415 diag- 
nostic lines for each form. These results which range from .42 
to .86 were worked out in the regular product-moment fashion, 
and are listed in the second column of Table IX in the Appendix. 

3. A further step in validation consisted in obtaining a consensus 
of judgment upon the most fair-minded individuals in certain groups, 
and discovering the test reaction of these selected individuals. 


&Morgenthau, Dorothy R., Archives of Psychology, No. 52, D- 33- 


26 The Measurement of Fatr-Mindedness 


In two graduate schools the faculty were asked to select, by secret 
ballot, the most fair-minded members of their group. In one 
small graduate school the student body was asked to select by 
secret ballot, the most fair-minded members in the student body 
and also in the faculty. In each case it was made clear that fair- 
mindedness with respect to religious and economic issues was to 
be the criterion of selection. 

It was evident from the lack of agreement inthe vote that there are 
very wide variations in the reputations of rather closely associated 
individuals with regard to their respective qualities of fair-minded- 
ness. However, it was assumed that a valid test should show some 
significant difference between the two or three most frequently 
mentioned in the vote of each group, and the ordinary student in 
the school. All of the individuals ranking among the first three in 
their group were invited to take the test. Copies were received 
from seven individuals, indicated by a star in the summation of 
the votes, in Table X in the Appendix. 

If we consider the gross score, we find that while the average 
Methodist minister in a certain mid-western state registered 37 
per cent. of the chances to show prejudice, and while the average 
college student or normal school student registered 30 per cent., 
this group of selected individuals averaged only 13 per cent. The 
differences between these people selected for fair-mindedness and 
the average theological student in Union Theological Seminary, 
is indicated on the group profiles shown on page 82 of the Appendix. 

4. Some of the most significant material for validation is in the 
form of case studies. In twenty-four cases a description of the 
prejudices which might be expected in some individual was secured 
in advance from some relative or close friend. Then the individual 
was given the test, and the analytical score graphed in a prejudice 
profile. In thirty-one other cases, the subject was given his profile, 
after taking the test, and asked to make his comments upon it. 
The descriptions, whether given by friends before the subject took 
the test, or given by the subject himself afterwards, were then stud- 
ied with reference to their agreement with the profile. While all fifty- 
five of the profiles with the parallel descriptions are on file with 
the original manuscript in Teachers College Library, Columbia 
University, New York City, only a few representative samples 
have been included in this study. Profiles Nos. I, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, II 
and 12 in the Appendix, are typical of the first type, in which com- 


What Do the Tests Really Measure? 27 


ment was made by some friend of the subject, while Profiles Nos. : 
25, 26, 27, 28, 31, 32, 45, 46 and 55 in the Appendix record the 
reactions of the subject himself. 

Several factors tended to make the comments agree less closely 
with the profiles than they might have been led to agree. Thus, 
in the studies of the first type no leading questions were asked. 
The types under which classification would be made were unknown 
to the person making the comments. The descriptions represent 
a reaction to the general question, ‘‘What religious and economic 
prejudices would you expect to find in . . .?” In the self- 
reactions, two troublesome factors entered. One was a misunder- 
standing of the phrase “‘prejudice which is in agreement with.”’ 
Several people found it difficult to believe that they could have some 
prejudices with which a capitalist would agree and others with 
which an economic radical would agree. A second factor was a 
tendency to criticize some form or element in the test, to defend 
original reactions, etc., instead of facing the question as to whether 
or not the results were a fair description. It was not made clear 
to these people that the scoring system passed by about four-fifths 
of the reactions they had made on the test and took account only 
of the extreme reactions. They naturally tended to think in terms 
of the marks they had made on the test paper, most of which were, 
indeed, opinions, as contrasted with prejudices. Also, they were 
probably not free from the almost universal tendency to distinguish 
between ‘‘my convictions” and “your prejudices.”’ 

Case studies like these do not lend themselves easily to summaries, 
but an attempt has been made in Tables XI and XII in the Appen- 
dix to classify each response in terms of agreement with the test 
result. The first twenty-four statements made by people about 
their friends, seemed to present fifty-nine definite expectations which 
could be checked against the analytical score. Of these, forty-three 
could be classed as ‘Clearly Fulfilled,’’ ten as ‘‘Doubtful,” or 
‘Possible, ’’ and six as ‘‘ Not Indicated.” It is probably significant 
that five of these last six were predictions which had been made 
by one individual. While such a summary is less valuable than 
a study of the particular cases, it is probably fair to conclude that 
approximately three-fourths of the unguided and general pre- 
dictions made by relatives and friends seemed to be verified by 
the test results. 

The second group of profiles has been even more difficult to 
summarize because so much blanket approval was indicated. What 


28 The Measurement of Fair-Mindedness 


does it mean when a person says, “‘I think the test shows my prej- 
udices very well?’’ In this summary it has been assumed that 
such statements represent a real reaction to half of the eighteen 
analyzed scores-shown on the profile. Thus, if a man condemned 
the whole test as unfair, he is recorded as having rejected nine 
predictions, and accepted. none. If he approved in general, but 
objected at two points, he is recorded as having approved seven 
of the scores and rejected two. On that basis, which is obviously 
not unduly favorable to the test since most of the blanket reactions 
were positive, there were reactions to 272 analyzed scores. Of these, 
220 were approved and accepted, 52 were questioned or rejected. 
Again, insisting that the summary is less valuable than are the 
particulars out of which it has been approximated, individuals 
confronted with their own specific scores seem to approve in about 
four-fifths of the cases. 

5. Studies of individual cases have a distinct disadvantage to 
the world at large, in that the individual is not known. If the 
ordinary individual sees his own prediction about a friend clearly 
revealed by a test profile, the test having been administered and 
scored by someone who had never seen nor heard of the subject, 
he is likely to be deeply impressed. Certainly, his impression is 
much deeper than that he possesses upon hearing of the results in 
the case of a score of persons, none of whom he knows. Perhaps if 
it were feasible in a land of liberty, to broadcast the prejudices 
of well-known religious or political leaders the study of individuals 
could be made fairly conclusive validating evidence. However, 
at present it must remain far more convincing to the writer and 
to the people who participated in the study, than it is likely to 
appear to others. 

This disadvantage can be partially overcome by a study of people 
in groups. The prejudices of a certain student in Union Theological 
Seminary are known to very few people. The prejudices of Union 
‘Theological Seminary students in general are fairly familiar to a 
large number of people. There are many people who possess what 
they believe to be a competent opinion about the differences in 
prejudice between Roman Catholic students and Protestant stu- 
dents in general. 

Study was therefore made of certain available groups. It would 
be expected that valid tests would show the kinds of prejudice within 
each group, and the differences in prejudice between one group and 


What Do the Tests Really Measure? 29 


another, corresponding to the judgment of competent judges. 
The group profiles, shown on pages 68 to 81 of the Appendix 
indicate graphically the average prejudice status of each group 
and the comparisons between certain groups. It is useful to note 
not only the differences between groups which stand out so vividly 
on these graphs, but also the outstanding characteristics of each 
group. Note, for instance, the prejudice of Methodist ministers 
for strict amusement standards, and that of students in Union 
Theological Seminary for liberal economic reforms. 

Attempt to check the findings of the test against the experience 
of competent observers was made informally at first. Groups of 
graduate students in three different seminars were asked to announce 
the places at which they would expect to find a difference in prej- 
udice between certain groups, for example, between Methodist 
ministers and normal school students. Approximately twenty 
different predictions were made about some of the group compari- 
sons, involving at least fifty different judges, and without exception 
the tests revealed the outstanding differences which these groups 
of students anticipated. Still there remained the probability that 
these students did not represent very wide-spread experience and 
judgment and that they did not give more than passing considera- 
tion to the question. Therefore, a further and more definite check 
was made by sending questionnaires to twenty-five persons, engaged 
in several types of occupation, living in various sections of the 
country, but persons who were likely to be familiar with at least 
some of the groups to be compared. These judges were asked to 
check the lines of bias (corresponding to those used in the analytical 
score) along which they would expect to find one group markedly 
more prejudiced than the other. They were asked to put two plus 
signs at points at which they felt particularly certain that a large 
difference in bias existed. 

Fifteen judges replied, but, due to an ambiguity between “prej- 
udice for’? and “prejudice against,’’ only thirteen of the replies 
were capable of clear interpretation. On the page facing each 
group profile (pages 68 to 81 in the Appendix) is given the summary 
of the ratings made by these judges-for the groups compared in 
the profile. —The maximum number of votes possible at any point of 
difference was twenty-six, but the double-plus was very rarely 
used. The mean of the judges expecting a difference on any item 
was about seven. Usually the vote was divided, some judges expect- 


30 The Measurement of Fair-Mindedness 


ing one group to be more prejudiced, many expecting the other group 
to be more prejudiced in agreement with the suggested bias. When- 
ever one group was given a majority of six or more votes over the’ 
contrasted group, this was regarded as evidence that a real difference 
in prejudice might be expected. The analyzed test score, should, 
if valid, show a difference at each such point. 

The degree of agreement may be studied in two ways. First, 
we may ask, ‘‘If the judges be assumed to have the more reliable 
insight, and if all the points at which they expected a marked 
difference are taken, will the tests reveal such a difference?”’ As 
indicated above, a majority of six judges expecting one group to 
be more prejudiced than the other, was regarded as evidence of 
a ‘‘marked difference.’’ In the case of the profiles a marked dif- 
ference was assumed to exist in the case of the largest differences in 
score, as many, in order of size, being included, as there were marked 
differences indicated by the judges. That is to say, in the case of 
two groups in which four marked differences between them were 
indicated by the judges, the first four differences in order of size, 
on the profile sheets, were considered marked differences in the test 
score. The results are summarized in Table XIII in the Appendix. 
In general, the tests showed a difference in the direction in which 
the judges expected a marked difference, in 91 per cent. of the 
predictions, and showed it to be relatively a marked difference in 
81 per cent. of the cases. 

The second approach can be made in the other direction. It 
might be true that while the tests did show differences where the 
judges expected them, the tests also would show many additional 
differences not anticipated by the judges, and presumably less 
valid. Therefore, the four largest differences indicated by each 
profile were selected and the number of judges agreeing that such 
a difference was to be expected and the number who would have 
expected the difference to be in the other direction, were tabulated. 
These results are given in Table XIV in the Appendix. In general 
it appears that 221 judges’ votes would anticipate differences 
where the profile found them to be marked, and that 22 judges’ 
votes would have expected the difference, but in an opposite direc- 
tion. Six of the twenty-two who differ, do so in connection with 
the comparison between students in Wisconsin and similar students 
in New Jersey. Unfortunately, none of the judges who replied were 
familiar with both groups from first-hand experience. Hence, it 


What Do the Tests Really Measure? 31 


may be that a considerable proportion of the difference is to be 
attributed to the inexperience of the judges. Eight of the twenty- 
two dissenting votes occurred in the comparison between the older 
and younger Methodist ministers. The older ministers, on the 
test, registered more prejudice which agreed with the economic 
liberal, than did the younger men. The reason was obviously that 
the older men were more prejudiced in general. They had more 
prejudices of all kinds, radical as well as conservative, than younger 
men had. This, and perhaps the social radicalism of the Methodist | 
church in general, did not seem to be adequately considered by 
the judges. 

In general, then, it appears that the findings of the test with 
regard to group differences are confirmed by competent judges 
in something more than 8o per cent. of the cases, and that in the 
remaining situations there is some probability that the discrepancy 
is due to variables affecting the rating given by the judges. 

6. It is now necessary to consider the question: Are these tests 
measures of something other than fair-mindedness? One ever- 
present danger is that a test with peculiar directions and much 
reading material will prove to be a measure of comprehension of 
reading. Two further suggestions have commonly been made. 
One is that the tests may measure intelligence, or at least that 
Forms C and D seem very much like questions used in intelligence 
tests. The second is that these tests take thoughtful, enlightened 
opinions and call them prejudices, so that the only person likely 
to make a low score would be a wishy-washy person of vast ignorance 
and no convictions. 

Data available for forty normal school students make possible 
a correlation between the prejudice score and the score made for 
comprehension of reading using the Thorndike-McCall Reading 
Scale. The correlation is —.005. 

The relationship to intelligence may likewise be studied in terms 
of correlation. Here data are available for fifty-nine students, 
each of whom took two or three group intelligence tests (Terman, 
Morgan, Illinois, Otis, or James). These scores were averaged and 
the resulting I. Q.’s ranged from 74 to 124. The correlation between 
intelligence and the prejudice score based on the whole test, was 
found to be —.08. The correlation with the prejudice score on 
Form C was —.06 and the correlation with the Form D test .o9. 

It is rather surprising that within this group there should be 
no apparent relationship between the amount of intelligence and 


a9 The Measurement of Fair-Mindedness 


the amount of prejudice or of fair-mindedness. One factor seems 
to be that several of the most intelligent individuals of the group 
had been raised in sheltered middle-western homes, and had been 
nourished with a strong prejudice against religious radicals, liberal 
morals, and economic radicals. At the other end of the intelligence 
scale were several men who had, through knocking about in the 
world, acquired more years of experience and a_ rough-and-ready 
tolerance. 

Form C, the Inference Test, while it seems superficially to re- 
semble a test frequently used for intelligence, apparently is not a good 
measure of intelligence for the kind of group represented in college. 
This is due in part, of course, to the high selection, so that the in- 
telligence required to see that one statement is more closely related 
to the evidence than is some other statement, is present in prac- 
tically all of the persons. When an individual checked one of 
the incorrect conclusions, it was not because he did not see clearly 
a difference between that statement and the facts placed above it— 
it was rather because he had so strong an emotional reaction toward 
the statement that he required very little provocation to register 
his conviction that the statement was true. The hypothesis that 


_ the basis of the reaction was emotional fervor and not intellectual 
| discrimination was even more clearly illustrated with Form D. One 


student was speaking the experience of many others when she said, 
‘“‘T see my inconsistency,—the cases are the same—but what are 
you going to do? This one is in the Bible!”’ 

Certainly such an experience is not out of accord with the con- 
clusions of psychiatrists who have dealt with that aggravated form 
of prejudice known as paranoia. Alert and keen insight into mat- 
ters not emotionally conditioned is not uncommon. Glueck’ 
says: “‘Memory, and the capacity to acquire new knowledge re- 
main intact, and reasoning and judgment on matters of every-day 
life which do not touch his more or less circumscribed delusional 
field, may remain quite normal.”’ 

The other question, as to whether this is really a measure of fair- 
mindedness or merely a measure of empty-mindedness is answered 
partly by the inherent character of the test items. It is perfectly 
possible to express an opinion in most of the forms of the test with- 
out expressing an opinion that goes so far as to call its opponents 
names, to draw unwarranted conclusions or to discriminate un- 


7Glueck, Bernard, Studies in Forensic Psychiatry, p. 136. 


What Do the Tests Really Measure? 33 


_ fairly against groups that are disliked. Thus, in the study of the 
annual conference of the American Country Life Association, ;re- 
ported on pages 39 and 40, it was found, using a test composed in 
large part of Forms A, B, and E, that the three-day conference pro- 
duced a change of opinion on 15 per cent. of the items, but practically 
no change in prejudice. 

In the Lake Geneva Y. W. C. A. conference, reported on page 37, 
it was discovered that during the longer conference there was an 
actual reduction of the amount of prejudice. Moreover, the reduc- 
tion was apt to be greatest in those lines most discussed by the 
students, while on items which did not come into the conference 
there was little or no change. 

In the study of race relations reported on pages 40 and 41, the 
result of more enlightenment, study, and discussion, was clearly to 
decrease the prejudices of the members of the class, as recorded by a 
test similar to Form F. 

Even better evidence comes in the group comparisons. It is 
surely unreasonable to assume that the reasons why theological 
students at Yale Divinity School and at Union Theological Sem- 
inary are more open-minded on religious questions than is the 
ordinary college student, are that they have given less thought to 
religious questions, or are less well informed, or are empty-headed 
upon such subjects. Likewise, it is surely unfair to interpret the 
low score obtained on the test by those individuals, professors in 
theological seminaries and other graduate institutions, who were 
voted most fair-minded by their colleagues as being simply in- 
dications of ignorance or wishy-washy indecision. 

There is good evidence, on the other hand, that persons can be 
well informed, enlightened, and at the same time strongly prejudiced 
ona given subject. The prejudice of the financial leader in Profile 11 
was not due necessarily to ignorance of economic factors and con- 
ditions. There was a very close relationship between his study and 
interest in that field and his prejudice. So, likewise, the ministers 
of the mid-western state registered considerably more prejudice 
than did the college students on most religious and moral questions. 
This prejudice, too, correlated highly with the amount of informa- 
tion and interest in the field. Probably the distinction lies not in 
the amount of information or study but in the character and method 
of that study. This seems to be evidenced in the case of the con- 
trast between those ministers who have had college and theological 


34 The Measurement of Fair-Mindedness 


training and those who have not. The latter were much more apt | 
to have acquired their information and experience in a biased and 
one-sided manner. 

Very evidently it is possible for a person or group to hold strong 
convictions, to be well informed, and not thereby to increase the 
prejudice score on this test. The converse situation, that of having 
no convictions or information and thereby making a low score, 
must be admitted as a possibility. Every test should recognize 
that causes other than the major one may be influential upon the 
score. A pupil may score low in a geography test because of lack 
of ability to read rather than because of lack of geographical in- 
formation, or he may make a high score because of a working com- 
bination of slyness and dishonesty. It is not at all impossible that 
a person may be able to secure a low score on this test for some 
other reason than his fair-mindedness. He may be lacking in con- 
viction, or he may be exceedingly wary in expressing himself on 
paper, or he may stupidly misread the directions. Aside from 
Profile No. 12, in which it seems that an individual’s written re- 
actions are much more carefully guarded than are his oral outbursts, 
no clear cases of other factors affecting the score have been en- 
countered among the approximately five hundred persons, from 
varying environments, who have been studied. 

In every case in which a very low prejudice score was made, some 
investigation was carried on. In all of the cases for which data were 
available, the person was found to be one highly respected by his 
associates as a person of fair, discriminating mind. In certain other 
cases, the subject reported his agreement with the findings of the 
test and shared his reasons for believing that he deserved to rate 
as less prejudiced than his fellows. (See especially Profiles No. 27 
and 55 in the Appendix.) 

It seems probable to the author that the number of persons who 
go about empty-minded, unable to react intellectually or emotion- 
ally to words, situations, and arguments commonly used in heated 
and controversial fashion by their fellowmen, has been considerably 
over-rated. The weak, flabby, uncertain, ill-informed people who 
would seem to be the best timber for such a product appear usually 
to register a high but inconsistent score. They hate this class of 
people and ‘‘adore’’ that idea, with little insight, reliability, or 
consistency. They have been called ‘‘spineless”’ and ‘“‘vacillating’”’ 
not because of their lack of reaction but because of the abundance 


What Do the Tests Really Measure? 35 


of reaction. They are not unaffected by any breeze, they bend with 
every zephyr! 

Summary. What do the tests really measure? Judging by their 
reliability, they are a consistent measure of something. At least 
they are as consistent as is the ordinary group test. At least within 
a selected group like college students, the ‘‘something’’ which they 
measure seems not to be ability to comprehend reading, nor yet 
intelligence, nor even information upon these questions. If we may 
judge by the nature of the tests themselves, they seem to measure 
fair-mindedness as contrasted with prejudice or bias. This seems to 
be true in every form of the test. The tests as a whole appear to 
measure something in which persons who have been selected as very 
prejudiced register a very high score of 50 per cent.,60 per cent., even 
70 per cent., while average students register 30 per cent. and the 
most fair-minded individuals register 5 per cent., 10 per cent. or 15 
percent. The tests reveal approximately the same prejudices which 
close acquaintances have discovered by long association. Most 
individuals, confronted with the results, believe them to be a fair 
measure of their own prejudices. The tests applied to groups show 
differences between those groups at the points at which competent 
judges would expect to find differences in prejudice. Perhaps, 
therefore, it may be concluded, that, unless conflicting evidence 
should be obtained, these tests may be regarded as usable measures 
of prejudice as contrasted with fair-mindedness, upon certain 
religious and economic issues. 


CHAP FER 
SUGGESTED USES FOR THE TESTS 


Probably the most obvious use for tests of fair-mindedness is 
to determine what the situation is in a given group or individual. 
Imagine a politician who is called upon to make an address before 
an audience of considerable importance, and about whose prej- 
udices on the question at issue he has little or no information. 
What would it be worth to him to know, in advance, the direction 
and degree of prejudice? Not infrequently a teacher, especially 
in a controversial field, wastes time and effort because he does not 
appreciate where the bias is strongest in his students. Consider 
a minister entering upon a new pastorate, having dealings with 
a new group of officials and of young people. How many disastrous 
steps might be avoided, were it only practicable to administer such 
a test to his constituency and forewarn himself as to the prejudices 
which he may expect to encounter! 

Even in the present, less tractable world, such surveys seem 
useful. Recently, a travelling secretary for the Student Friend- 
ship Fund reported that he was using a modification of Form A, 
in connection with his work in colleges. Coming into a strange 
college town, he passed out his blanks to men in dormitories and 
fraternity houses, scored rapidly a number of samples, and was 
ready when the hour for his chapel talk arrived, to avoid or meet 
fairly the existing prejudices of the school. On page 39 is described 
the experience of the discussion leaders in a national conference 
who had been ill advised as to the point of view and the interests 
of the group they were to lead. The application and study of these 
tests on the first day of the conference, saved the whole conference 
from an uncertain but probably unfortunate fate. What has been 
done in these situations in a rather hasty fashion, might well be 
done carefully and accurately by any group seeking to study the 
existing prejudices in certain geographical, economic, or religious 
groups. | : 

A second way in which tests of this sort may prove useful was 
suggested in Chapter I. When investigating the need for tests 
of fair-mindedness, it was pointed out that the creation of accurate 
tests was a desirable prerequisite to the study of the effectiveness 


Sugeested Uses for the Tests 37 


of various teaching methods. Once such a test has been prepared, 
it is possible to test, in equated groups, the effectiveness of lectures, 
sermons, prayer-meetings, moving-pictures, pageants, group-dis- 
cussions, posters, reading assignments, advertisements, and other 
supposed techniques for influencing public opinion. 

A method of this sort was followed in studying the effectiveness 
of certain conferences. One of these was the Lake Geneva Y. W. 
C. A. student conference, held in the summer of 1924. Using a 
method of rotation, part of the conference took Forms A, B, and C 
of these tests at the beginning, and then took Forms D, E, and F ' 
at the end. The remainder of the conference, supposedly equated 
by chance selection, took Forms D, E, and F, at the beginning 
and then took Forms A, B, and C, at the end. The conference was 
conducted by Professor Harrison S. Elliott of Union Theological 
Seminary upon the principles laid down in his booklet, The Why 
and How of Group Discussion. Essentially, the method involved 
an endeavor to recognize the worth in points of view which differed 
from those which had been brought into the conference, so that 
after a free give-and-take of discussion and an utterly good-natured 
sharing of information and ideals, each person might leave the 
conference with more of truth than he brought to it. The main 
exception to this program came in dealing with certain industrial 
questions. Speakers were brought in to emphasize the viewpoint of 
large groups of working girls in the great cities. 

In gross score, the groups taking Forms A, B, and C averaged 
36 per cent. at the beginning of the conference, and 30 per cent. at 
the close. The groups taking Forms D, E, and F, registered 26 
per cent. of the chances to showa prejudice at the beginning of the 
conference, but only 23 per cent. at the close of the conference. 
The comparison between the beginning-group and the end-group 
for each set of test forms is clearly shown in the group profiles 
on pages 83 and 84 of the Appendix. The slight increase evident in 
both cases upon economic-liberal points of view, may have been 
due to the influence of the speakers who stressed the necessity for 
economic reforms. The real significance of the changes indicated 
cannot, however, be definitely established until we know just what 
the effect of taking Forms A, B, and C is likely to be upon individ- 
uals who subsequently take Forms D, E, and F, and what the 
reverse effects would be. 

It seems probable that in a similar fashion the tests may be used 
effectively in the study of curricula. For example, suppose the 


38 The Measurement of Fatr-Mindedness 


students entering a theological seminary were tested at the beginning 
of the year, and again after a year of study. Comparison might 
be made between the changes taking place in the prejudices of 
students|who had worked in the philosophy of religion, or church 
history, or systematic theology, with students who had worked 
in field situations, in the study of modern social movements, or of 
psychology, or religious education. The changes which have taken 
place in one group as compared by partial correlations or some 
similar method, with changes which have taken place in another 
‘group, might well prove some index of the effect of given subjects 
in producing prejudice or fair-mindedness. Herbert A. Sturges 
of the University of Chicago has made an interesting beginning 
upon such an experiment in some of his, Studies in the Dynamics 
of Attitude.| He has measured the shifts in ideas and opinion which 
have been due to taking certain courses in sociology, or to reading 
certain material. Measurement of the shifts in more deep-rooted 
aspects of attitude would be desirable supplements to such studies. 
Of course, it is not contemplated that the entire curriculum of a 
theological seminary, or the contents of a course in sociology, or 
the method of promoting foreign missions, or carrying on a political 
campaign, shall be determined solely by its effectiveness in producing 
certain degrees of prejudice or of fair-mindedness. Nevertheless, 
every such study, carefully made, will bring us one step rlearer to 
a scientifically established curriculum. 

Still a further line of very wide usefulness is opened up by the 
possibility that the content of the tests can be varied without de- 
stroying their validity as measures of prejudice. While this is 
not yet established, it seems probable that the evidence for validity 
will be significant beyond the immediate content of this set of ques- 
tions which will probably be out of date in ten years. The most 
useful contribution may prove to be not the materials, but the 
method. 

Thus it may be possible to substitute in Form A, words from 
controversial realms other than the religious or economic. It may 
be possible to substitute in Form B other statements upon which 
competent authorities might well differ; in Form C different evi- 
dence with distorted conclusions running into other fields of interest; 
in Form D, parallel instances from other fields of vital human ex- 
perience; in Form E, arguments upon political, or international, 


1Obtainable from H. A. Sturges, 5707 Kenwood Ave., Chicago, IIl. 


Suggested Uses for the Tests 39 


or scientific questions; in Form F, generalizations about races or 
families or political parties or forms of literature or art or almost 
anything else. With comparatively simple steps in standardiza- 
tion, these new tests could be used to measure fair-mindedness in 
realms far removed from the religious or economic. 

Two preliminary attempts have been made. The first was an 
adaptation of Form A, Form B, and selected parts of Form E, 
to fit the issues which might be considered by the American Country 
Life Association at its annual convention in 1924. The material 
contained some of the same test items which are in the standard 
Watson Test of Public Opinion, but fully three-fourths of the items 
dealt directly with scientific agriculture, tenant farming, consoli- 
dated schools, the Non-Partisan League, country churches, and 
similar issues. These new items were formulated in the same way 
that the original test had been formulated. (See pages 8 to 12.)? 

The first purpose which these modified tests served, was to reveal 
to the leaders the actual state of affairs in the minds of the dele- 
gates. The discussion leaders had not correctly appraised the per- 
sonnel of the conference. They had made their plans supposing 
that certain issues represented the real areas of difference in opinion 
among the delegates. The tests given at the opening session not 
only provoked interest and discussion, but revealed that the leaders 
had been mistaken. The prejudice reactions, by inspection, and 
brief tabulation, revealed real and vital issues, but not at the partic- 
ular places where the leaders had expected to find them. On the 
issues which the leaders had planned for discussion, the conference 
held an almost unanimous prejudice. Only this discovery and a 
rapid readjustment of program prevented some hours of flounder- 
ing in the limited time available for group thinking. 

A second purpose which the tests served, was to record the shifts 
in opinion which took place between the beginning and end of the 
conference. In general these appeared to be toward the idea of the 
church as a very necessary and desirable agency in country life, 
but toward the idea of the church as at its best when it broadens 
out and serves the whole community in a modern fashion. 

The third purpose which the tests served was to register the 
changes in prejudice which took place. The scoring system was 

2A complete copy of the test, and a description of the conference, with a discussion of the results, 


may be found in the Proceedings of the American Country Life Association, Seventh National Con- 
ference, American Country Life Association, Grand Central Terminal, New York City. 


40 The Measurement of Fatr-Mindedness 


exactly the same as that for Forms A, B, and E, so far as the gross 
score was concerned. Analytically, instead of studying the twelve 
lines of bias which the Watson test uses, six lines of bias, represent- 
ing the radical and the conservative position on rural economics, 
religion, and community service, were used. Sixty papers were 
received at the beginning of the conference, and these were compared 
with thirty-three turned in at the close of the session. Twenty- 
two papers were known to be from the same person, both at the 
beginning and at the end. Probably all of the thirty-three were 
included in the original sixty. In any case, examination of the 
twenty-two pairs which could be identified gave the same results 
as did the study of the wider sampling. The summary of results 
is given in Table XV in the Appendix. The first line gives the gross 
score for the entire test, 34 per cent. at the beginning of the con- 
ference, 34 per cent. for the close of the conference. Below this 
are given the gross scores for each of the test forms used, and then 
in the lowest section of the table, the analytical score along each of 
the six lines of bias studied. The significant fact is that apparently 
this three-day conference produced no change in the average prej- 
udice state. Opinion shifted markedly, but prejudices remained 
surprisingly constant. 

This stability may have been due, in part, to the fact that some 
of the issues most warmly discussed at the conference were not 
in the test, and some of the issues in the test, due to the misappre- 
hension regarding the interests of the group, did not come out into 
the discussion. However, if that be true, the results speak well 
for the reliability of the converted test. 

A second adaptation was made to the needs of a class in Christian- 
ity and the Race Problem. Form F was taken as the model and 
generalizations about race relations were included in the test. On 
page 41 are given some of the statements included, indicating before 
each the number of persons voting ‘‘ All, Most, Many, Few, or No”’ 
at the beginning of the class and similar votes after the course of 
SIX sessions. . 

Taking into consideration the entire forty statements, of which 
these are only typical samples, and expressing reactions in terms 
of per cent. to equate the before and after groups which were 
different in size, the results were as follows: 

At the beginning, the class on the average took 20.6 per cent. of 
the chances to say ‘‘All,’”’ and 10.7 per cent. of the chances to say 


pene geen 


pe Ae ye Ot Pan ee 


Dew pW ew 


pe 


ee 


ee ee 


Suggested Uses for the Tests AI 


SOME OPINIONS ON RACE RELATIONS 


B. Before the course of study. 
A. After the course of study. 
All Most Many Few No ? 


2| 13} 30} ©} oO} 2) Jews will try to get the best of a bargain if they 
6} 3] 21} 5] o| 1| have to cheat to do it. 
33| 9] 2] ©} O} 3) Positions in the industrial world should be open to 
18} 8) 3) ©} Oo} Ij any man with the ability to fill them, regardless — 
of racial traits. 
16} 7} 7| ©} 8] 9} Colored people should go to schools, hotels, thea- 
3} 8} 5] 3] I] 5] tres, etc., patronized exclusively by colored people, 
thus preventing some inter-racial contacts. 
I} 22} 24) 0} I} 0} White people feel some antagonism toward negroes. 
o| 14) 15} I} o}| o 
0} 10] 28} 9] 0} 0} White people feel.some antagonism toward Jap- 
O} 4) 23} 2} Oj} I] anese or Chinese. 
I} I} If} 25} 4} 5) Whitepeople feel some antagonism toward Indians. 
woe are 7) 16) (oO) 4 
8| 16} 17| 3} 1) 2! Negroes emit an odor which is characteristic of 
3} 8] 13} 2] 1} 3) their race, and which white people find disagree- 
able. 
6) 20] 12} 3] 3] 3] Persons of pure Nordic stock are superior in 
O} Io; 12 2} 3] intelligence to negroes. 
4; 15} 5} 11] 8} 4 ‘Pure blooded’’ members of a race are superior to 
I; 4; 9] 10} 3} 3} those of mixed stock. 
2} 13) II} 9] 6] 7| Negroes are more prone to commit sexual offense 
0} 5} 13} 9} O| 3] than is the average white man. 
28) 14; 3} 2] ©} ©} Small children who have not been prejudiced by 
13) 14} 2} 0} O} I) others, will play with children of other races, quite 
unconscious of racial differences. 
I7| 3) 2} 3} 13} 9] Persons who refuse to give to a negro the same 
8} 4! 4! 5] 4] 4 social recognition which they would give to a 


white person of similar character, are unworthy 
to be called Christians. 
I} 12} 16] 12} o| 6] Japanese would be crafty and even treacherous, 
o| 2] 16] 11] o| 1| if necessary, to secure the dominance of their 
nation. 
o| 12} 22} 6] 2| 4] Racial difficulties are caused by the desire of the 
o| 4] 19] 5] o| 2| white people to gain and control the resources 
of the world. 


7| 3] | 12} 14} 11| Persons of one race should be permitted, with 
6| 7} 3] 6] 4| 4] mutual consent, to marry persons of another race. 
5| 9] 7} 14} 1| 11| Colonies now held by white nations should very 
3) 13/ 6] 5] o}| 3} soon become entirely independent. 


42 The Measurement of Fair-Mindedness 


“No,” or 31.3 per cent. of the chances to register an ‘‘extreme”’ or 
‘‘prejudiced”’ statement. Suppose now that these be classified 

s “‘liberal’’ meaning ‘‘all-men-are-of-one-blood”’ in tone, or ‘‘con- 
servative,’’ meaning ‘‘in-the-status-quo-we-are-on-top, and-it-would 
best-be-left-alone.”’ Then 58 per cent. of the prejudices were liberal, 
and 42 per cent. were conservative. 

At the end of the class, the average took 13.6 per cent. of the 
chances to say “‘All,’’ and 7.9 per cent. of the chances to say “‘No,”’ 
or 21.5 per cent. of the chances to register an extreme or prej- 
udiced statement. Of these, 70 per cent. were liberal and 30 
per cent. were conservative. 

The class as a whole appeared to become more fair-minded, but 
seemed to drop conservative prejudices faster than liberal prejudices. 
This rests, however, on the assumption that the thirty persons who 
were in the class at the end, were a fair sample of the forty-seven 
present at the beginning. It may well be that part of the change was 
due to the dropping out of the more prejudiced, and more con- 
servatively prejudiced persons. However, all of the thirty were 
included in the forty-seven, and the instructor’s opinion was that 
the most prejudiced persons had preferred to oy in the group, 
rather than drop out of it. 

Experiments in the improvement of methods and curricula, and 
the measurement of educational ventures in other than religious or 
economic realms seem to offer immediate, constructive service. 
However, it may be that even greater possibilities will be found to 
lie in realms which seem to be less practical, and which may be 
purely scientific research. For example, it is possible by use of such 
tests to select individuals who are remarkably prejudiced, and others 
who are remarkably fair-minded. These individuals might then be 
carefully studied, with a view to finding the factors which have 
entered significantly into the experience of one type of individual, 
as contrasted with the significant factors in the experience of the 
other type. It seems probable that the application of the tech- 
niques of the social case-worker and of the psychoanalyst might 
discover very fruitful sources of prejudice and methods for its 
elimination. 

The reactions which individuals made to their own profiles sug- 
gests the need for another study, endeavoring to find out the ways in 
which individuals ‘‘interpret, excuse, rationalize’’ or, otherwise, 
defend their prejudices. How far can self-report be trusted, within 


Suggested Uses for the Tests 43 


the realm where some praise or blame might be expected from others? 
How is insight into the real nature and origin of one’s prejudices 
best acquired? 

Again, a need is evidenced by this study, for a keener analysis 
of ‘‘facts,”’ “‘evidence,”’ and ‘‘arguments.’’ These techniques have 
long been held in high esteem as methods of influencing public 
opinion.!. However, these tests reveal that different people react 
with widely different attitudes to the same facts and arguments. 
Is there some method by which these prejudice factors can be re- 
duced to terms of least common denominators, so evidence can be 
‘‘weighed”’ alike by people at different points of a prejudice scale? 
Will it be possible to ‘“‘try out”’ propaganda material upon groups 
selected because of different degrees and directions of prejudice, in 
such a way as to find out the reactions it produces, and to compare 
the effectiveness of different forms? 

Quite evidently there are other possibilities in the study of the 
relationship between prejudice and emotional instability, or other 
personality traits. Perhaps for certain types of work, for example, 
social research, the selection of personnel will be found to be facil- 
itated by such tests of fair-mindedness as have been developed here. 

It is probably true of this research, as of most of others, that it 
begins with one problem and ends in a maze of problems. The 
curious child reaches to pick up a twig, lying exposed on the bare. 
ground, but finds that it leads him on and on, for it is one small root 
of a great tree. 


yy 66 


1Lippman, Walter, Public Opinion. 


¢ 
Lone) 


is j 
‘4, / vit 
} eae x, “<i 
weneeente | 
v 


P A Ai 
a : PS) a Whi . wry 
Gy bb eae ni ips ra pera? 
nu ; " Ay i brs ay 


ear Py Mh , 
5 yes | wre 4 i 


ik : 
aA ais ah 
: 1 vi¥ f 
A yi 


Aa 

Pasir AT ioe 

In i ; 

ean et tai 
i 


APPENDIX 


Pie} UDICE: PROFILESSAND SiAiS LIGASE ABLES 


46 The Measurement of Fair-Mindedness 


INDIVIDUAL PROFILES 


PROFILE No. I 


This man is a farmer in a small Wyoming town. He is the lead- 
ing pillar in the Methodist church. When I visited one Sunday he 
was drilling the children in the Sunday School on the names of the 
persons and the significant details of each of the Old Testament 
miracles. His neighbors consider him, next to —, the most 
stubborn man they have known. He is a rank-and-file member of 
the Farm Bureau, so should share some of their progressive eco- 
nomic ideas. 


PROFILE No. 2 


The Methodist minister in the Wyoming town. A young man 
of the hero-worshipper type. He is inclined to follow Harry F. 
Ward on radical economic ideas. On religious matters he is generally 
unsettled at present. He has strong inclinations toward the 
‘social gospel,’’ and strongly opposes war. Fairly stable on the 
value of religion, preaching, etc. Has “improper” thoughts, and 
wants to be a “‘good fellow”’, but is strongly under the domination 
of his wife, who is an old-style executive, ‘‘come-upper’’ minister’s 
wife. 


A ppendix 


47 


PROFILE NO. 1 


Per CENT OF PREJUDICE AGREEING WITH: 


Economic Radical 
Economic Liberal; for Mild Reforms 
Economic Status Quo; Capitalist 
Social Gospel: Industry; Race; Peace 
Personal Communion; Mysticism 
Orthodox Fundamentalism 
Modernism; Christian Liberalism 
Religious Radical 
. Protestantism: Opposing Roman Catholics 
Roman Catholicism: Opposing Protestants 
Strict, Puritanical Moral Censorship 
Freedom, License, Uncensored Morals 
. Against Economic Status Quo 
Against Economic Radicals 
. Against Religious Fundamentalists 
Against Religious Radicals 
. Against Superstition, Magic, Mystery 
. Against Any Form of Religion 


© ]oelsrlota |e |e |e |x 


Le ne ce en ae Ot Ee a te 
B/S ITAlA |S lo] s | 19 


PER CENT OF PREJUDICE AGREEING WITH: 


I. Economic Radical 
2. Economic Liberal; for Mild Reforms 
3. Economic Status Quo; Capitalist 
4. Social Gospel: Industry; Race; Peace 
5. Personal Communion; Mysticism 
6. Orthodox Fundamentalism 
7. Modernism; Christian Liberalism 
8. Religious Radical ee 
9. Protestantism: Opposing Roman Catholics 
10. Roman Catholicism: Opposing Protestants 
11. Strict, Puritanical Moral Censorship 
12. Freedom, License, Uncensored Morals 
13. Against Economic Status Quo 
14. Against Economic Radicals 
15. Against Religious Fundamentalists 
16. Against Religious Radicals 
17. Against Superstition, Magic, Mystery 
18. Against Any Form of Religion 


PROFILE NO. 2 
O 10 20 a0 AO 50 60 70 


48 The Measurement of Fatr-Mindedness 


PROFILE No. 3 


My chief feeling concerning my friend, is that she is a person 
of very liberal ideas in almost every way, but that she is much freer 
in her ideas than in her correspondent conduct. This, perhaps, 
is of no particular value for your purpose. 

So far as my evaluation of your diagnosis of her goes, I think 
in the main that it is very fair. She is undoubtedly a person of 
strong bias against anything savoring of complusion or orthodoxy 
in religion. Quite inconsistently, however, she is often a valiant 
champion of the Roman Catholic faith, more from the aesthetic 
appeal, I believe, than from any conviction of its rightness of doc- 
trine or organization. She also has a great fear of and scorn for 
religious intolerance, which leads her to champion those who are 
religiously maligned (maligned in religious matters, I should say) 
by her particular group. 

One part of your diagnosis I do not agree with. I think she 
does not lean toward the “social gospel’’ of anything, let alone 
religious work. She is an individualist absolute, except as she is 
conditioned by her own rather childlike relation to her family, 
and to her mother in particular. Her particularly pet idea is that 
she is willing to let all others do as they care to so long as she is 
free to pursue her own likes and dislikes. She would have a de- 
cidedly more favorable reaction to the word “‘capitalist’’ than to 
the word “‘sharing,’’ etc. 


PROFILE No. 4 


———is one of the parlor radical type. ‘‘Emancipated”’ proba- 
bly to the reaction stage against conventional morals, religion, 
education, art. She smokes and reads Rabelais. She is probably 
something of a Rand School type, although I am not sure of this. 
She thinks she has little use for religion. 


mF. 


y 


Appendix 


PROFILE NO. 3 


oO 10 20 30 40 50 60 
PER CENT OF PREJUDICE AGREEING WITH: : 


1. Economic Radical 
2. Economic Liberal; for Mild Reforms 
3. Economic Status Quo; Capitalist 
4. Social Gospel: Industry; Race; Peace 
5. PersonaljCommunion; Mysticism 
6. Orthodox Fundamentalism 
“7, Modernism; Christian Liberalism 
8. Religious Radical 
9. Protestantism: Opposing Roman Catholics 
10. Roman Catholicism: Opposing Protestants 
11. Strict, Puritanical Moral Censorship 
12. Freedom, License, Uncensored Morals 
13. Against Economic Status Quo 
14. Against Economic Radicals 
15. Against Religious Fundamentalists 
16. Against Religious Radicals 
17. Against Superstition, Magic, Mystery 
18. Against Any Form of Religion 


PROFILE NO. 4 


fowl 20 EIO QO _ 50 60 
PER CENT OF PREJUDICE AGREEING WITH: 


I. Economic Radical 

2. Economic Liberal; for Mild Reforms 

3. Economic Status Quo; Capitalist 

4. Social Gospel: Industry; Race; Peace 

5. Personal Communion; Mysticism 

6. Orthodox Fundamentalism 

7. Modernism; Christian Liberalism 

8. Religious Radical 

9. Protestantism: Opposing Roman Catholics 
Io. Roman Catholicism: Opposing Protestants 
it. Strict, Puritanical Moral Censorship 

I2. Freedom, License, Uncensored Morals 

13. Against Economic Status Quo 

14. Against Economic Radicals 

15. Against Religious Fundamentalists 

16. Against Religious Radicals 

17. Against Superstition, Magic, Mystery 

18. Against Any Form of Religion 


7o 


7O 


49 


50 The Measurement of Fair-Mindedness 


PROFILE No. 5 


I would say this individual was prejudiced against organized 
religious ideas and strongly in favor of capitalistic points of view. 


PROFILE No. 6 


I should say this individual was the least prejudiced person 
I had ever known. 


A ppendix ot 


PROFILE NO. 5 


10 20:9) 590 40 50 60 10 
PER CENT OF PREJUDICE AGREEING WITH: 


Economic Radical 

Economic Liberal; for Mild Reforms 
Economic Status Quo; Capitalist 

Social Gospel: Industry; Race; Peace 
Personal Communion; Mysticism 

Orthodox Fundamentalism 

Modernism; Christian Liberalism 

Religious Radical 

Protestantism: Opposing Roman Catholics 
Io. Roman Catholicism: Opposing Protestants 
Ir. Strict, Puritanical Moral Censorship 

12. Freedom, License, Uncensored Morals 

13. Against Economic Status Quo 

14. Against Economic Radicals 

15. Against Religious Fundamentalists 

16. Against Religious Radicals 

17. Against Superstition, Magic, Mystery 

18. Against Any Form of Religion 


©] 90 }aa Font | |e [09 | 


PROFILE NO. 6 


f°) 10 20 30 40 50 60270 
PER CENT OF PREJUDICE AGREENG WTR Or 


Economic Radical 
Economic Liberal; for Mild Reforms 
Economic Status Quo; Capitalist 
Social Gospel: Industry; Race; Peace 
Personal Communion: Mysticism 
Orthodox Fundamentalism 
Modernism; Christian Liberalism 
. Religious Radical 
9. Protestantism: Opposing Roman Catholics 
10. Roman Catholicism: Opposing Protestants 
11. Strict, Puritanical Moral Censorship 
12. Freedom, License, Uncensored Morals 
13. Against Economic Status Quo 
14. Against Economic Radicals 
15. Against Religious Fundamentalists 
16. Against Religious Radicals 
17. Against Superstition, Magic, Mystery 
18. Against Any Form of Religion 


gels foto |e |e | | 


52 The Measurement of Fatr-Mindedness 


PROFILE No. II 


I consider this man one of the most prejudiced individuals 
I have ever known. He is so much of a fundamentalist that he 
gleefully condemns to the nethermost hell any person who suggests 
that heaven is not up above the clouds, a real, existing place. 
He has been a leader in finance, connected with one of the greatest 
banking institutions of the country. He said to me at one time, 
‘‘T should like to see every socialist with a millstone around his neck 
thrown into the deepest part of the ocean.’”’ Oddly enough, however, 
although he belongs to a denomination which has prohibited many 
forms of amusement, he is inclined to take a much less stringent 
view of such questions. He said, for example, that as far as he was 
concerned he would rather have the young people dance in the 
church than out in the dance-hall. 


PROFILE No. 12 


I believe this person to be very dogmatic in religious matters, 
less so in economic matters, but on the whole to be bigoted and 
prejudiced. . . . (Later comment) He is, however very 
cautious about expressing himself in writing. He is very finicky 
about expressing himself in words. It may be well that this would 
interfere with a real exhibition of prejudice on such a test. 


Appendix 


PROFILE NO. 11 


10 20 30 40 = 50 60 870 
Per CENT OF PREJUDICE AGREEING WITH: 


1. Economic Radical 

2. Economic Liberal; Mild Reforms 

3. Economic Status Quo; Capitalist 

4. Social Gospel: Industry; Race; Peace 

5. Personal Communion; Mysticism 

6. Orthodox Fundamentalism 

7. Modernism; Christian Liberalism 

8. Religious Radical 

9. Protestantism: Opposing Roman Catholics 
to. Roman Catholicism: Opposing Protestants 
11. Strict, Puritanical Moral Censorship 
12. Freedom, License, Uncensored Morals 
13. Against Economic Status Quo 
14. Against Economic Radicals 
15. Against Religious Fundamentalists 
16. Against Religious Radicals 

17. Against Superstition, Magic, Mystery 
18. Against Any Form of Religion 


PROFILE NO.12 


fo) 20, 30 400 50 60 70 
PER CENT OF PREJUDICE AGREEING WITH: 


Economic Radical 
Economic Liberal: for Mild Reforms 
Economic Status Quo: Capitalist 
Social Gospel: Industry; Race; Peace 
Personal Communion: Mysticism 
Orthodox Fundamentalism 
Modernism; Christian Liberalism 
Religious Radical 
. Protestantism: Opposing Roman Catholics 
10. Roman Catholicism: Opposing Protestants 
t1. Strict, Puritanical Moral Censorship 
12. Freedom, License, Uncensored Morals 
‘13. Against Economic Status Quo 
14. Against Economic Radicals 
15. Against Religious Fundamentalists 
16. Against Religious Radicals 
17. Against Superstition, Magic, Mystery 
18. Against Any Form of Religion 


ofelatayr |e fo [ste 


BAe The Measurement of Fair-Mindedness 


PROFILE NO. 25 


I consider this reaction very indicative of my prejudices. 


PROFILE No. 26 


Form A gave me some rather striking revelations regarding 
my own prejudices. I was brought up in Massachusetts and there 
imbibed in early life a very deep-seated antagonism to the Roman 
Catholic Church. Intellectually, this has been entirely modified 
in later life and I now have in many respects a very decided respect 
for Catholicism. I find, however, that when it comes to an imme- 
diate reaction my early prejudices crop out. I can see no particu- 
lar reason for my negative reaction to the name of President Cool- 
idge unless it be that I have always been a Democrat.: Prohibi- 
tion is an unpleasant word to me although I have always voted 
“dry.” I think that I have a rather strong feeling against anything 
that smacks of smugness. 


A ppendix 


PROFILE NO. 25 


° o 30 r-Te) 50 60 710 
PER CENT OF PREJUDICE AGREEING WITH: E 


t. Economic Radical 

2. Economic Liberal: for Mild Reforms 
3. Economic Status Quo; Capitalist 

4. Social Gospel: Industry; Race; Peace 
5. Personal Communion; Mysticism 

6. Orthodox Fundamentalism 

7. Modernism; Christian Liberalism 

8 

9 


. Religious Radical 

Protestantism: Opposing Roman Catholics 
10. Roman Catholicism: Opposing Protestants 
11. Strict, Puritanical Moral Censorship 
12. Freedom, License, Uncensored Morals 
13. Against Economic Status Quo 
14. Against Economic Radicals 
15. Against Religious Fundamentalists 
16. Against Religious Radicals 
17. Against Superstition, Magic, Mystery 
18. Against Any Form of Religion 


PROFILE NO. 26 


° {0 20 30 40 50 60 70 
PER CENT OF PREJUDICE AGREEING WITH: ————————————— ee 


Economic Radical 
Economic Liberal; for Mild Reforms 
Economic Status Quo: Capitalist 
Social Gospel: Industry; Race; Peace 
Personal Communion: Mysticism 
Orthodox Fundamentalism 
Modernism; Christian Liberalism 
Religious Radical 
Protestantism: Opposing Roman Catholics 
10. Roman Catholicism: Opposing Protestants 
Ii. Strict, Puritanical Moral Censorship 
12. Freedom, License, Uncensored Morals 
13. Against Economic Status Quo 
14. Against Economic Radicals 
15. Against Religious Fundamentalists 
16. Against Religious Radicals 
17. Against Superstition, Magic, Mystery 
18. Against Any Form of Religion 


Lae | 
. 


ale] 


See ke bee 


55 


56 The Measurement of Fatr-Mindedness 


PROFILE No. 27 


The score of 15 per cent. and the low prejudice profile seems 
right in my case, because I am always very cautious about taking 
an extreme position. Nor do I find persons of different opinion 
objectionable to me. I can generally see their way of thinking. 


PROFILE No. 28 


I feel that this is fair except in cases 17 and 18 which are almost 
O per cent. in my case. 


Appendix 
PR 
c?) 


PER CENT OF PREJUDICE AGREEING WITH: 


I. Economic Radical 
2. Economic Liberal; Mild Reforms 
3. Economic Status Quo; Capitalist 
er Social Gospel: Industry; Race; Peace 
5. Personal Communion; Mysticism 
6. Orthodox Fundamentalism 
7. Modernism; Christian Liberalism 
8. Religious Radical 
9. Protestantism: Opposing Roman Catholics 
10. Roman Catholicism: Opposing Protestants 
Ir. Strict, Puritanical Moral Censorship 
12. Freedom, License, Uncensored Morals 
13. Against Economic Status Quo 
14. Against Economic Radicals 
I5. Against Religious Fundamentalists 
16. Against Religious Radicals 
17. Against Superstition, Magic, Mystery 
18. Against Any Form of Religion 


PER CENT OF PREJUDICE AGREEING WITH: 


Economic Radical 
Economic Liberal: for Mild Reforms 
Economic Status Quo: Capitalist 
Social Gospel: Industry; Race; Peace 
Personal Communion: Mysticism 
Orthodox Fundamentalism 
Modernism; Christian Liberalism 
. Religious Radical 
. Protestantism: Opposing Roman Catholics 


Io. Roman Catholicism: Opposing Protestants 
Il. Strict, Puritanical Moral Censorship 
12. Freedom, License, Uncensored Morals 


13. Against Economic Status Quo 

14. Against Economic Radicals 

15. Against Religious Fundamentalists 
16. Against Religious Radicals 

17. Against Superstition, Magic, Mystery 
18. Against Any Form of Religion 


37 
OFILE NO.27 


10 20 30 40 
———————— ee 


PROFILE NO.26 


0 10 
et 


58 The Measurement of Fatr-Mindedness 


PROFILE No. 31 


I consider it a misnomer to call this a prejudice test excepting 
in the’sense of its being a test of the prejudices of the compiler. 
To consider it fair-minded, for instance, to believe it wrong to 
expect all physically-able Christians to attend a church service is 
absurd! It is a test of convictions as well as of prejudices and the 
weakness of the test is its failure to differentiate between prejudice 
and conviction. The profile sheet does not chart my mind very 
accurately. 


PROFILE No. 32 


I think this test is worth while. In my own case I think the test 
is fairly satisfactory. In numbers 2, 3, and 6 I think the Prejudice 
Profile is a little severe. It is too severe in number II. 


— 


Appendix 


PER CENT OF PREJUDICE AGREEING WITH: 


Economic Radical 
Economic Liberal; Mild Reforms 


x: 
2. 
3. Economic Status Quo; Capitalist 


4. Social Gospel: Industry; Race; Peace 

5. Personal Communion; Mysticism 

6. Orthodox Fundamentalism 

7. Modernism; Christian Liberalism 

8. Religious Radical 

9. Protestantism: Opposing Roman Catholics 
10. Roman Catholicism: Opposing Protestants 
Ir. Strict, Puritanical Moral Censorship 
12. Freedom, License, Uncensored Morals 

13. Against Economic Status Quo 
14. Against Economic Radicals 

15. Against Religious Fundamentalists 

16. Against Religious Radicals 

17. Against Superstition, Magic, Mystery 

18. Against Any Form of Religion 


PER CENT OF PREJUDICE AGREEING WITH: 


1. Economic Radical 

2. Economic Liberal; for Mild Reforms 

3. Economic Status Quo; Capitalist 
Social Gospel: Industry; Race; Peace 
Personal Communion; Mysticism 
Orthodox Fundamentalism 
Modernism; Christian Liberalism 
Religious Radical 


Strict, Puritanical Moral Censorship 
Freedom, License, Uncensored Morals 
Against Economic Status Quo 
Against Economic Radicals 

Against Religious Fundamentalists 
Against Religious Radicals 

Against Superstition, Magic, Mystery 
Against Any Form of Religion 


—_ 
— 
EEE 
—_ 

. 
ee — 
ee 

. 
i 

. 
_—— — eee 

. 
—]—— — — — 

. 
. 
. . 
— ee eee 
: 
. 

. 

. 

. 

. 
eee 


59 


PROFILE NO 3} 


ie) 10 30 40 
ee se es Se meee eens aes es assess as | 


PROFILE NO. 32 


20 50 60 70 


10 20 30 40 50 60 70 


60 The Measurement of Fair-Mindedness 


PROFILE No. 45 


I feel that this test is fair—with the exception to the fact that I 
believe every man needs to be prejudiced on some of these questions 
—and when he is, he should not be said to be unfair-minded. 


PROFILE No. 46 


I have a decided feeling that the term fair-minded is not used 
correctly. That the high commendation given to those lacking 
in virile moral convictions is unfortunate. For example, can we 
judge the 10 per cent. students at Columbia more in harmony with 
highest principles of life than the students at Union Seminary? 
I rather doubt it. In moral issues which group would be more de- 
fendable and aroused? 

Should there not also be a distinction between prejudice on 
things which should not call for it, such as ‘‘ Bolshevik,’’ and those 
which are morally wrong, such as ‘‘K. K. K.?” 

I am very much interested, however, in the questionnaire. It 
has many fine features. 


A ppendix 
PROFILE NO. 45 


10 20 30 40 50 


PER CENT OF PREJUDICE AGREEING WITH: 


al 
. 


Economic Radical 


2. Economic Liberal; for Mild Reforms 

3. Economic Status Quo; Capitalist 

4. Social Gospel: Industry; Race; Peace 

5. Personal Communion; Mysticism 

6. Orthodox Fundamentalism 

7. Modernism; Christian Liberalism 

8. Religious Radical 

9. Protestantism: Opposing Roman Catholics 
10. Roman Catholicism: Opposing Protestants 
11. Strict, Puritanical Moral Censorship 
12. Freedom, License, Uncensored Morals 

13. Against Economic Status Quo 

14. Against Economic Radicals 

15. Against Religious Fundamentalists 

16. Against Religious Radicals 

17. Against Superstition, Magic, Mystery 

18. Against Any Form of Religion 


PER CENT OF PREJUDICE AGREEING WITH: 


PROFILE NO. 46 


10 20 30 40 50 


Economic Radical 


- 
2: 
3: 
4. 
Re 


Economic Liberal; for Mild Reforms 
Economic Status Quo; Capitalist 
Social Gospel: Industry; Race; Peace 
Personal Communion; Mysticism 


6. Orthodox Fundamentalism 


7m 
8. 
. Protestantism: Opposing Roman Catholics 


9 
Io 


Modernism; Christian Liberalism 
Religious Radical 


. Roman Catholicism: Opposing Protestants 
. Strict, Puritanical Moral Censorship 


Freedom, License, Uncensored Morals 


. Against Economic Status Quo 
. Against Economic Radicals 


IS. 
16. 


Against Religious Fundamentalists 
Against Religious Radicals 


17. 
18. 


Against Superstition, Magic, Mystery 
Against Any Form of Religion 


60 


70 


61 


62 The Measurement of Fair-Mindedness 


PROFILE No. 55 
(Note: This person, a graduate student in educational psychology, made the lowest score of any 


person to whom the test has been given. She was asked to describe her personality, past exper- 
ience, and present opinions and convictions. Extracts covering all the main points in her reply 


are given below). 


The exceptionally low score does not surprise me; it seems to me 
quite valid in general, the result of a combination of circumstances 
of nature and environment, somewhat different from those of the 
ordinary college group. I have made rather extreme scores in other 


cases. 


PROFILE NO. 55 


10 20 30 40 £50 60 
PER CENT OF PREJUDICE AGREEING WITH: 70 


I. Economic Radical 
2. Economic Liberal: for Mild Reforms 
3. Economic Status Quo; Capitalist 
4. Social Gospel: Industry; Race; Peace 
5. Personal Communion; Mysticism 
6. Orthodox Fundamentalism 
7. Modernism; Christian Liberalism 
8. Religious Radical 
9. Protestantism: Opposing Roman Catholics 
10. Roman Catholicism: Opposing Protestants 
Ii. Strict, Puritanical Moral Censorship 
12. Freedom, License, Uncensored Morals 
13. Against Economic Status Quo 
14. Against Economic Radicals 
15. Against Religious Fundamentalists 
16. Against Religious Radicals 
17. Against Superstition, Magic, Mystery 
18. Against Any Form of Religion 


One needs a certain mentality to follow the argument where it 
leads, and according to intelligence tests, Ihave that. With in- 
telligence, I think there usually goes a tendency toward diffuse 
interests, a curiosity as to reasons for environmental conditions, 
a satisfaction in understanding the more subtle elements of ex- 
perience. On the side of emotion I find a host of old fears that are 
hard to control, making for inhibitions of all kinds, also a set of 
quixotic over-suggestible sympathies, pulling me always toward 
the side of the under-dog, the unpopular cause. As to McDougall’s 
third factor, impulse, I am slow, deliberate, indecisive, with an 
inertia that makes action hard to start and hard to stop. In case 
you know the Downey Will-Profile I will enclose one made a year 
or so ago, with the list of traits as I checked it then. | 


A ppendix 63 


ST fR eal Fey grit tn Se a Aa re 7) Reachons co Cp OOsILION a: usin + cuee ae neieas 9 
PrPeerrOn IfONt LOR tails cre ls vs tad SU HINANtyPOrpuGbient Ares is cy ws ee aca yee 8 
Hare at ape BOB Sey a ee a Si Motoriinht biclon sees vies wah teeien ate p ier 10 
eye Be tah, us uae eA n 0 ee BP) ImterGgcrini tL evale sos ue ws deste La wiele Aas 9 
GHEE PLINLDULISIO Mater td ese cic isle bos 6 eins as. bis. vca's 5 Coordination on Impuilees.: ki. oa oe ise 10 
Reacuon to Contragictions <i)... cea. see 10.) Volitional; Perseverationte.< 1 sis ned cies bes 10 


Eight years of comparative leisure in a cosmopolitan city, abroad, 
gave me the advantage of a wide variety of friends of different 
races, Classes, beliefs, and interests, from every part of the world. 
The complexity of social conditions and the genuineness of widely 
diverse points of view came home to me vividly. 

With such a nature, schooling, and experience is it strange that I 
should reserve decisions, reconsider all kinds of arguments, and 
make all possible allowances, in such a way as to give me a low score 
on this test? The ‘‘All” or ‘‘No”’ response is utterly foreign to me. 
Whatever my own opinions, such matters are phenomena for study 
rather than cases for action on my part; the behavior of persons 
concerned is to me a matter for interpretation rather than simple 
praise or blame, for study into sources, and the enormous complexity 
of social causes and results. 

The purpose of the test seemed clear to me from the first page, 
and it surprised me to learn in the seminar that it is not generally 
recognized. Perhaps my experience with tests and their construc- 
tion gave me the clue. However, I do not think there is any item 
I could change without further explanation of the item or more in- 
formation on the subject. It is part of my four year’s experience 
with tests that an artificial or manipulated score is of. no interest 
to anyone. Material like this test often comes into the seminar 
in its preliminary stages for discussion or criticism, and I[ did not 
know that the paper would be scored, or that the scoring method 
had been developed. . . . On the whole then, I do not think 
my knowledge of the purpose of the test made a difference in the 
response. It is for you to estimate how much unconscious influence 
there may have been. I had no reason for wanting to make an ex- 
treme score, and expect that any valid score would be rather low. 

I remember three items that I underscored (in the Form A test) 
Military Preparedness ;—There isa real antipathy here, an emotional 
bias. I am sympathetic with the pacifist ideal of being unwilling 
to think in terms of war as possible. That seems to me in line with 
true, spiritual, social growth. However, on the mental side, I have 
some doubt of the pragmatic validity of this method at present. 


64 The Measurement of Fatr-Mindedness 


I can at least see room for doubt on the part of sincere, broad- 
minded people. Damn: The bias here is against impulsive lack 
of self-control rather than any over-sensitive puritanism. Cvgar- 
ettes: The repellant factor here is the connotation of stunted child 
growth, and of associated moral conditions that are bad for children. 
I have had some amusement in watching the disappearance of the 
part of this prejudice that relates to “cigars” and ‘‘tobacco,” 
which was a strong one some years ago, through reading and also 
through observation of special cases of smoking among men and 
women I otherwise admired, where I could detect no proof of 
injury. 

As to the profile, if there is any reliability in these differences 
my greatest prejudice is against superstition, mystery and magic. 
This seems logical, for I definitely prefer and believe in, scientific 
interpretations. Also, I seem to have most of the points on relig- 
ious, rather than economic issues, which ought to be fair, for it 
seems to me easier to keep the objective point of view in economics 
than in religion, which is more of a personal matter. 

My interest, knowledge and information are about that of the 
average college graduate. While abroad, I took two courses in 
sociology and economics, six points each, for the interest of them, 
as the credit would not count in graduate work. The professor was 
a singularly thoughtful, fair-minded, elderly man, who was always 
trying to get people to read the literature of the group they opposed. 
I have had only one course here in that line, Mr. Shenton’s in 
Community Organization. I was able to attend a unit course with 
Dr. Coe, for the interest of it. Last year I enjoyed Sir Arthur 
Thompson’s lectures on Science and Religion enough to cut one of 
my own classes for it, a thing I have almost never done. I have 
grown up in the church, and have attended regularly when health 
and strength permitted. I am still keeping in active touch with 
my home church, a union church which has gathered its members 
from perhaps forty or fifty denominations, with very liberal preach- 
ing. I appreciate highly Dr. Fosdick’s preaching and books. One 
of my sisters lived for ten years in a South-Side Chicago settlement, 
finally as head, and my visits there, and her letters kept alive that 
kind of interest. I have held a codperating subscription in the 
Survey for ten or twelve years at least, although I am sorry to say 
my course reading at college has rather crowded out that on social 
problems of late. I was interested enough in the tests to want to 


A ppendix 65 


discuss the subject matter with my friend the Y. W. C. A. Industrial 
secretary in————-and to get her to fill one out. So far as I can see, 
my basis of interest and fact compares reasonably well with that 
of others who have not specialized in these fields. 

Some samples of statements on the topics given may best illus- 
trate the opinions and convictions which I hold. 

I do not approve of the economic status quo but feel that the 

truest method of change is evolution, not revolution. I have seen 
sincere and earnest capitalists and sincere and earnest working 
people studying to find the next steps in progress, and I think the 
problem is not one for any easy panacea, but for technical and 
scientific study, and long patience. Those who offer simple, easy 
solutions have hardly seen all phases of the situation. 
Until religion becomes an integral part of human social life, no 
manipulation of economic forces will bring a working solution. 
However, no amount of dreaming will take the place of the study 
needed. 

I approve of profit-sharing, think it very helpful in many cases, 
but do not feel well enough acquainted with business conditions 
and with types of profit-sharing, to feel sure that it would do more 
good than harm at present in all cases. “Continuity of labor varies 
a good deal in different situations, responsibility accordingly. 
Causes and effects are difficult to disentangle. 

I should be glad to see the Child Labor Amendment passed, so 
far as my present information goes, although I have heard that 
there has been a trend of opinion away from it among thoughtful 
people. Where children need protection from the evils of society 
today, in order that a better foundation may be had for the future, 
I think the children should have the benefit of the doubt. If I were 
to vote on the issue, I should certainly try to get more information 
first. 

In the Prohibition issue, I believe there are many social benefits 
which are less advertised than the damage we hear so much of. 
I am grateful for these benefits, and hope that they may be saved 
for the coming generation. I do not think prohibition can be fairly 
tested in one generation. The closely involved issue of law en- 
forcement, as a matter of a national habit of thinking, makes 
it a serious question whether the amendment did not come before 
the public opinion which makes laws reasonably valid. 

There seems to be a combination against effective prohibition, of 


66 The Measurement of Fair-Mindedness 


moneyed interests which would profit by the sale of liquor, and of 
persons so habituated to its use that they are not open to argument, 
and of others who have tried to weigh the conditions fairly and who 
see the coércion involved as a greater evil than the sale of liquor. 

I hope I am more than one per-cent for the Social Gospel. As 
I understand it, society is composed of individuals and religion - 
must work through human lives one by one. The importance of 
personality is not decreased by the importance of social relation- 
ships, but rather increased. Social salvation will come only through 
the salvation of individuals in their social relationships. 

Apparently, I registered some prejudice in agreement with 
Catholicism. . °. . From scraps of experience, conversations, 
overheard, etc., I had the idea that Catholic priests were required 
to have something corresponding to a college education as a founda- 
tion for theological training, (very likely a narrow type from the 
scientific point of view) while Methodist candidates are not re- 
quired to have a college preparation. I judged accordingly that 
Catholics would have higher standing in education and general 
culture. I have had very little direct experience with either, but 
have seen both sincerity and high spiritual values in some phases of 
Catholicism. I think their fundamental assumptions are false, 
their control of thought is pernicious, and I believe that the power 
motive, rather than the religious motive, has been back of much of 
the history of the Roman church. I am a thorough Protestant in 
my own point of view, however, with respect for the spiritual reali- 
ties which many come to, through the Roman Church, and for many 
beautiful traditions which are as much a part of Protestant as of 
Roman religious history, literature, and art. 

Similarly among Fundamentalists I have seen sincerity, spiritual 
values, in many cases real beauty of character, and self-forgetful 
devotion to ideals. I think the fundamentalist point of view intel- 
lectually wrong, static, out of harmony with evolutionary growth and 
with the essential harmony of all truth; therefore, a possible source 
of very real danger to the development of religious life, especially 
among the younger generation. 

I have seen too much fineness of ah apace in Buddhist, Con- 
fucianist, and Jewish friends to doubt that real spiritual values 
exist here. Some small contact with Christian Science, Theoso- 
phy, the Bahai cult, etc., has been enough to make me considerate 
of values that others find in them. I would expect to find that any 


A ppendix 67 


religion which has continued long appealing to any large group of 
men, has had some spiritual value. This does not mean that I 
agree with any one of them. I am convinced of the moral value 
and the spiritual benefit of the concept of progressive development 
toward unlimited ends, which modern Protestant Christianity 
connotes. I believe that Christianity is the best hope of the fu- 
ture, but that it will come to ally itself with truth wherever found, 
and that it will seek to overcome selfishness in the West as well as 
‘‘false gods”’ in the Orient. 


GROUP PROFILES 
RATINGS OF JUDGES ON PROFILE I 


MeEtTHopIst MINISTERS IN A MID-WESTERN STATE 
COMPARED WITH 
STUDENTS ENTERING UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY 


Number of 


Number of Judges Expecting 
PREJUDICE Judges Expecting] Students Enter- Marked 
IN AGREEMENT Methodist ing Union Theo-| Differences 
WITH Ministers logical Seminary 
To Be More To Be More 
Prejudiced Prejudiced 
1. Radical on Economic Questions, 
Opposed to Capitalism e) 7 xX 
2. Economic Liberal, Desiring Mild 
Reforms 3 8 
3. Capitalist, Favoring Economic 
Status Quo and Opposing Radi- 
cals 9 2 Xx 
4. Social Gospel, in Contrast with 
Individual Salvation, etc. I 4 
5. Personal Communion, Mysti- 
cism, etc. 8 oO xX 
6. Fundamentalism 10 re) xX 
7. Christian Modernism, Liberalism a 6 
8. Religious Radical 2 6 
9g. Protestantism 7 ) xX 
10. Roman Catholicism 2 I 
Ir. Strict Puritanical Morals and 
Amusements 9 e) x 
12. Free, Loose Morals O 3 


Two judges state merely that the ministers will be more prejudiced on almost 
everything. 


\O v, 
3 2) 
SyUSUIOSNUIY pue s[eIOP [CoUeWINgG PWS ‘II 
UWISIOTOYJeD ULUIOY ‘Or 
a UISIJUCSI}IOIG “6 
$fw?™ TROIPeY SNorsyoy °g 
LA 
UWISI[VIOqIT ‘UISIUIapOyY uesyD *L 
UisljeyuoWMIepuNnY *9 
‘O}e ‘UISIOIFSAPY ‘UOTUNMIUIOD [euOsIag °*S 
3 
S ‘DOJO “UOTPLALLS [ENPIAIPUT YAM 4se1zUOD ur ‘Jedsoy [eoG “PF 
S — 
~ speoripey suisoddO pue onO snjzezg su0u0Ng Zurs0aey ‘ysyeydesg *e 
“N 


SUIIOJOY PITA Sullisag ‘[e1eqi] OMIOUODW +z 


usieyided 07 pesoddg ‘suorsenG duou0ay UO [eoIpey ‘1 


=—3 ‘HLIM INAWAANDY NI dO1anlaug 
Os Sv Or S¢ oe GZ O72 S\ ol S Q 


AIBUTUIAS [BOFOTOoy | woul) LLLLLLLL LD: 


SULIIIU SJUIpPNS JO WAVY UO sdIpNfoig sIOJL sozeoIpuy 


2724S U19SIM-PIPL & UT SIOISTUTPL 
WIpoywY JO Weg uo avaoipnfsig s10P{ sozeorpuy Ee re 


AAY 
I SATMAOUd ADIAGN[AUNd 


70 The Measurement of Fair-Mindedness 


RATINGS OF JUDGES ON PROFILE II 


ROMAN CATHOLIC STUDENTS IN A NORMAL SCHOOL 
COMPARED WITH 
PROTESTANT STUDENTS IN THE SAME SCHOOL 


Number of Number of 
PREJUDICE Judges Expecting| Judges Expecting 
IN AGREEMENT xoman Catholics] Protestants To Marked 
WITH To Be More Be More Difference 
Prejudiced Prejudiced 
1. Radical on Economic Questions, 
Opposed to Capitalism I 4 
2. Economic Liberal, Desiring Mild 
Reforms I 3 
3. Capitalist, Favoring Economic 
Status Quo and Opposing Radi- 
cals I 2 
4. Social Gospel, in Contrast with 
Individual Salvation, etc. I 5 
5. Personal Communion, Mysticism, 
ett. 10 I 
6. Fundamentalism 10 I 
7. Christian Modernism, Liberalism O 9 
8. Religious Radical 3 6 
9. Protestantism O 14 
10. Roman Catholicism 14 oO 
It. Strict, Puritanical Morals and 
Amusements 2 5 


12. Free, Loose Morals 4 2 


7I 


Appendix 


-N}S 3Ues9}01g JO WG UO ddIPNfaig sIOP S97zeOIpUT 


S[PIOW BOOT ‘991 

SJUIUIOSNUTY pue S[eIOP] [eITUL WING 41S 
WISTOIJOYVD UeUOY 

UWISIJULISIJOIg 

TesIpey snorsyoy 

WSI[e1oqry ‘UISTUIspOyy UeIWSLIYyD 
WISI[eJUIMIepUN 

‘D8 ‘UISIOIISAPT ‘UOIUNUIUIOD [eUOSIOg 


*O42 ‘UOIPEATLS [VNPIAIPU]T YIM yseIqUOD UT ‘Jedsoy [eos 


s[eoIpey suisoddg pue ono snjzejys DIuIOUODY SurioAey ‘ys1yeyideg 


SUIIOJOY PII SULIISEG ‘[eloqr’] DIMOU0Ny 


*ZI 


“II 


°% 


uistjeyided 07 pesoddo ‘suorj}sanG duIOUODy UO [eIIpey 


os 


JOOYIS suIeS 94} UI szUEp 


WLLL 


JOoyds jeulION & ur syuapNis 
MOD uewMoy jo peg UO es<Ipnforg o10py SazeoIpuT ire Rod 


ATM 


Il SHUAOUd AOIaNlaAud 


:HIIM INAWEaAADY NI FoIanlaug 


72 The Measurement of Fair-Mindedness 


RATINGS OF JUDGES ON PROFILE III 


METHODIST MINISTERS UNDER FortTyY YEARS OF AGE 
COMPARED WITH 
METHODIST MINISTERS IN THE SAME CONFERENCE, OVER FORTY YEARS 


OF AGE 

Number of Number of 
Judges Expecting|Judges Expecting 

PREJUDICE Methodist Methodist 

IN AGREEMENT Ministers Under| Ministers Over Marked 
WITH Forty Years of | Forty Years of Differences 

Age To Be More|Age To Be More 

Prejudiced: Prejudiced: 


I. Radical on Economic Questions, 


Opposed to Capitalism 7 53 
2. Economic Liberal, Desiring Mild 
Reforms 8 2 xX 
3. Capitalist, Favoring Economic 
Status Quo and Opposing Radi- 
cals I 9 xX 
4. Social Gospel, in Contrast with 
Individual Salvation, etc. 8 3 
5. Personal Communion, Mysti- 
cism, etc. fe) 6 xX 
6. Fundamentalism (e) ii 
7. Christian Modernism, Liberalism 9 2 
8. Religious Radical 2 2 
9. Protestantism O 7 xX 
Io. Roman Catholicism I I 
II. Strict Puritanical Morals and 
Amusements fe) II xX 
12. Free, Loose Morals 3 3 


Three judges state merely that the older ministers will be more prejudiced 
on almost everything. 


73 


A ppendix 


os 


S[RIOJ BSOO'T ‘39147 

syUsuIEsnUIY pure s[eIOy [eorueWwINg 9111S 

UISIOITOYJSD UeUIOY 

WIST}ULISI}OIG 

[ESIPeY SNOs yay 

WIST[VIIGI]T ‘UISTUIOpOoPy UeTSTIYD 

uIST[eJUIWIepUN YT 

‘O}o ‘UISIOIISATT ‘UOTUNUIMIOD [eUOSsIOg 

‘OJa ‘UOIJBATLS [ENPTAIPU] YA 3SeIWUOD ur ‘padsoy [RIS 
s[eoipey suisoddg pue ond snyzejg s1wWIOUO NY Sul0aey ‘ys17eyde| 
SWIOJOY PII SUILISIq ‘[eleqiT OuIOU0NT 


wsjeyided 0} pesoddg ‘suorsenG d1wWIou0D Fy UO [eoIperY 


‘HIIM INAWaARADY NI aoranfaudg 
Sv Ov se o€ Sz oz SI Ol S ° 


ay JO Siva x APIO. QAO JDUIIIJUOD IUIeS dy} UI SIOISIUITT 
IpoyPY JO Weg uUo aoIpnfsig s1OJ sozeoIpuy 


asy jo steax AIO Iopuy S194sI 


-UIJY WIPOYWYY JO Weg UO ddIPNlaig sIOW SozedIpuy VZZLLLZLLL 


ADM 
Il] SAMHAOUNd ADIGN[Aud 


i 


PEL 


74 The Measurement of Fatr-Mindedness 


RATINGS OF JUDGES ON PROFILE IV 


METHODIST MINISTERS HAvING Hap LEss THAN COLLEGE EDUCATION 
COMPARED WITH 
METHODIST MINISTERS HAVING HAD COLLEGE AND THEOLOGICAL 
SEMINARY TRAINING 


Number of Number of 
PREJUDICE Judges Expecting| Judges Expecting 
IN AGREEMENT Uneducated Highly Trained Marked 
WITH Ministers To Ministers To Differences 
Be More Be More 
Prejudiced Prejudiced 
I. Radical on Economic Questions, 
Opposed to Capitalism I 6 
2. Economic Liberal, Desiring Mild 
Reforms I 7 
3. Capitalist Favoring Economic 
Status Quo and Opposing Radi- 
cals 6 I 
4. Social Gospel, in Contrast with 
Individual Salvation, etc. I 6 
5. Personal Communion, Mysticism, 
etc. ) 0 
6. Fundamentalism 9 fe) 
7. Christian Modernism, Liberalism e) 9 x 
8. Religious Radical 3 8 
g. Protestantism 6 oO x 
10. Roman Catholicism I I 
11, Strict, Puritanical Morals and 
Amusements 9 I xX 
12. Free, Loose Morals 0) I 


Three judges state merely that the uneducated ministers will be more prej- 
udiced along almost every line. 


Appendix 


S[RIOPL BSOOT ‘a0Iy ZI 


SJUIUIISNUTY PUe STRIOP[ [LUC WING PIS ‘II 


UWISINIJOYeD UeUIOY ‘or 


UWISIJULSIIOIG °6 


[PIPEY SNosypoy *g 


WSI[TeIaqry] ‘wstuIepoyy uensiyd *L 


uISsT[ejueWIepuNnYy “9 


S+ or se Of se od SI! ol S oO 


ee KZZLLZZZZA 
AICUIUIIG [BIISO[OoY , Pue IBo][OD peY SuIAePH SI9ISIUI|[ (LLLLLL LLL 


yIpoyyW jo Weg uo soipnfaig V0 sezyeorpuy 


Paty ate een 
WIpoyyyY jo weg wo osoIpnfslg s1IOJ_ so9z}eOIpuy 


KAY 
AI SAMNAOUd AOIGNAUd 


‘O}e ‘UISIOIJSAT, ‘UOTUNUIWIOD [euOsIag °S 


‘Dye ‘UCT}JEATLS [ENPIAIPU] YM 4seIqUOD UT ‘Jedsoy [eID0S “V 


s[eoIpey Suisoddg puke onG& snjzejys Dwo0ucdY BulIOAey ‘ystjeyided °f 


SUIIOJOY PIA Sursssq ‘[e1oqry Duouosq *z 


wisljeyided 07 pesoddgo ‘suorsenG dulou0dg uo [eoIpey “1 


*>HLIM LNHYWHEYDSY NI aoianfaud 


76 


10. 


BA Be 


r2) 


The Measurement of Fatr-Mindedness 


RATINGS OF JUDGES ON PROFILE V 


STUDENTS IN NORMAL SCHOOL 


COMPARED WITH 


MetuHopist MINISTERS IN THE SAME MID-WESTERN STATE 


Number of 
Judges Expecting} Judges Expecting 
Norma! School 
Students To Be |Ministers To Be 


PREJUDICE 
IN AGREEMENT 
WITH 


Number of 


Methodist Marked 


Differences 


More Prejudiced|More Prejudiced 


Radical on Economic Questions, 
Opposed to Capitalism 


Economic Liberal, Desiring Mild 
Reforms 


Capitalist, Favoring Economic 
Status Quo and Opposing Radi- 
cals 


Social Gospel, in Contrast with 
Individual Salvation, etc. 


Personal 
cism, etc. 


Communion, Mysti- 


Fundamentalism 


Christian Modernism, Liberalism 


| 
Religious Radical | 
Protestantism 

Roman Catholicism 


Strict, Puritanical Morals and 
Amusements 


Free, Loose Morals 


| 
a 


ae 


oe 


bo 


Ne) 
oa 


Ny 


O 


77 


Appendix 


os 


"9721S UII}SAM-PIJT OUILS dy} UT S19}ST 
-UIJT WIPOYWI JO Weg UO dIIPNfsig s10P SozeoIpUy 


JOOYDS [euLION 
ul syuepnys jo yeg uo soIpnfaig s10OJX sozeoIpuy 


AAM 


LLLLLLL LL. 


S[PIOJ[ BSOO7T ‘VI *ZI 


sjUsUIaSNUIy pure s[elOpy [eoUeWINg PUIG “It 


UISINIJOYJLD UBWIOY “OI 


WISIJUL}SI}IOIG °6 


[CIpeY SNowsiypeyY °s 


WISI[VIOqr] ‘UISTUIspOyYY URIsHYD “2 


UWIsT[eyUIWMIepUNY “9 


‘OJo ‘UISTOISATT ‘UOTUNTIUIOD [eUuOsIag °S 


‘DJa ‘UOTPEATES [ENPIAIPU] YAM ySeIqWUOD ur ‘Jadsoy [epog “V7 


s[eoipey suisoddg puv onG snjzejg dmOUODY Bup0ary ‘ysiyeyidey *€ 


SULIOJOY PIA Susaq ‘jesloqvy] Wwou0IW *z 


uistjeyided 0; pesoddg ‘suorj}senG Wuou0oy uo [eoIpeyY “1 


tHLIM INAWATYDY NI adianlaud 


A SA UAOUd AOIGNLAUd 


78 


12: 


The Measurement of Fair-Mindedness 


RATINGS OF JUDGES ON PROFILE VI 


NORMAL SCHOOL STUDENTS IN A NEW JERSEY SCHOOL 


COMPARED WITH 


NORMAL SCHOOL STUDENTS IN A WISCONSIN SCHOOL 


PREJUDICE 
IN AGREEMENT 
WITH 


Radical on Economic Questions, 
Opposed to Capitalism 


Economic Liberal, Desiring Mild 
Reforms 


Capitalist Favoring Economic 
Status Quo and Opposing Radi- 


cals 


Social Gospel, in Contrast with 
Individual Salvation, etc. 


Personal Communion, Mysticism, 
etc. 


Fundamentalism 

Christian Modernism, Liberalism 
Religious Radical 

Protestantism 

Roman Catholicism 


Strict, Puritanical Morals and 
Amusements 


Free, Loose Morals 


Number of 
Judges Expecting 


Normal School | Judges Expecting 


Students in a 
New Jersey 
School To Be 
More 
Prejudiced 


Number of 


Normal School 
Students ina 
Wisconsin School 
To Be More 
Prejudiced 


One judge states that no difference can reasonably be expected. 


Marked 
Differences 


79 


A ppendix 


Sv Or SE O€ GZ 02 S\ 


JOOYIS UIsUODSIAA B UI syUNpNIS 
JOOYSS [VWION jo Weg UO ddIpPNfeig s10J SezeOIpuT 


JOoydS Avsiof MeN & UT syuapNiS 
[OOYIS [eULION JO Jeg UO ddIpPNfaig sIOWF sozeoIpuy 


Aa 


WHE ELIE 
Sj) weer 


ol 


S 1 @) 


VLLLLLLLLL. 


er a 
S[RIOW BOOT ‘Vo “ZI 
TOW 


SJUSUIOSNUIY pue sTeIOWy [POUL WING WINS ‘II 
UWISIO[OYJLD ULUIOY ‘or 

UWISIJUCSIIOIG °*6 

[ESIPeY SNOIBIpOY °g 

WSITe1oqIy ‘uIstuIapoyy ueTsIIYyD *L 
wWISI[vJUsMIepuNY “9 


"Oye ‘UISIOISAYPY ‘UOTUNUIMIOD [euOosIag °*S 

‘Je ‘UOTJEATLS [ENPIAIPU] YIM YseIWUOD UT ‘Jedsoy [eID0G “Fy 
s[eoIpey sulsoddO pue on} snjze7g dwouo0og Surioaey ‘ysyeydeo °€ 
SULIOJOY PIAL SULISeg ‘[eloqry SIuIOUCNW *z 

usl]eydeD 0} pesoddg ‘suorjsenG dtuou0sq uO [eoIpey, *1 


‘HLIM INAWARADY NI aD1anlaug 


IA SH U4OUd AOIGN[Aud 


80 


12. 


The Measurement of Fatr-Mindedness 


RATINGS OF JUDGES ON PROFILE VII 


THEOLOGICAL STUDENTS IN UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY 
COMPARED WITH 
STUDENTS IN CHRISTIAN ETHICS AT YALE DIVINITY SCHOOL 


Number of 
Judges Expecting Number of 
PREJUDICE Union Theo- |Judges Expecting Marked 
IN AGREEMENT logical Seminary} Yale Divinity Differences 
WITH Students To Be} School Students 
More Be M 
eee la ile REPS Prejudiced Prejudiced 

Radical on Economic Questions, 

Opposed to Capitalism 7 I X 
Economic Liberal, Desiring Mild! 

Reforms 4 2 

Capitalist, Favoring Economic 

Status Quo and Opposing 

Radicals 2 6 

Social Gospel, in Contrast with 

Individual Salvation, etc. 4 2 

Personal Communion, Mysticism, 

etc; 2 4 
Fundamentalism I 7 x 
Christian Modernism, Liberalism 4 2 

Religious Radical 4 8 

Protestantism 2 2 

Roman Catholicism O O 

Strict Puritanical Morals and 

Amusements oO 8 xX 
Free, Loose Morals 4 o) 


Two judges state merely that the Yale students may be expected to be more 
prejudiced in general on such issues. 


SI 


A ppendix 


GE o¢ S¢ o¢ 


S[PIOJT DSOO'T ‘99IY ‘ZI 


SJUSWIOSNUIY pure speIoyY [BOUL WING PWIS “1! 
uISIOOYyyeD UeUIOY ‘Or 

WISIJUL}SI}OIG *O 

[BOIpeY SNOWY “8 

UISITeIBqIT ‘UIsSTUIepoyY uelysuyD °L 


usIjeyuowepuny “9 


‘Oyo ‘WISIOTISAP ‘UOTUNTIUIOD [eUOSI9g “S$ 

‘DOJO ‘UOTPEATLS [ENPTAIPU] YUM 4SeIWWOD Ul ‘jadsoyy [BINOG “Vv 
STeoipeyY sutsoddg pure onG snjze4ys owsouoo 7 Sursoary ‘sysipeyidey °c 
SUIIOJOY Pl SUISeg ‘[eloqI] DIWIOUODy = *z 


uistjeyidesd 0} pesoddg suorjsenG dwW0uo oy UO [eoIpeyY “1 


*-HLIM INUNEEUDY Ni aoianlfaug 


Si ol S i@] 


JOOYdS AWUIAIC FPA ye sory” uensiuy? 
ur syuepnys jo eg UO sdIPNfsig sIOW sozeoIpuUyT os LLLLLLL LL. 


AICUIUIAS [BIIZOT[OOY T, UOTUA UT syuapNis 


[eorsojooy, jo weg UO sdIpNfsIg IIOP, sezeoIpUy 


ATM 


IIA SHUAOUd ADIGN[ANd 


The Measurement of Fair-Mindedness 


Os 


Sv Or S€ of G2 02 S| 


pepuryy-uedg yO, og OL 
peP,OA SUOSI9g JO We Uo sdIpnfsaig s1OP sozeoIpuy 


AICUIUIDS [CIIBO]OIy, UOT JO szuep 
“NS AIBUIPIO JO JAeG Uo sIIPNfeig s10P sdzeOIpUT 


AAS] 


ol 


ww) 
° 


S[ePIOY VSOO7T ‘daly ‘ZI 


SjUsWIASNUTY pure spe1Opy [eUe WING PIS ‘II 


WISTITOYID ueWOY ‘or 


UWISI]Ue}S9IOIg *6 


[eoIpey snorsypoy *8 


WISIUIOpOopPL UeTYSIIYD *L 


wisI[eyUsWIepuN *9 


‘O}o ‘UISIOISAYY ‘UOIUNUIMIOD [euOCsIag °S 


UOIZLATLS [ENPIAIPU] YIM 4sesqUOD UT ‘Jadsoy [eIO0S “FV 


sjeoipey sursoddg pure ono snjzejg dwIOUONY Suri0aey ‘ysyeydeg -f 


SULIOJOY PII Suisiseq ‘yeroqry] Wuouosy *z 


ustjeyided 0} pasoddg ‘suorjsenG s1u0u0cg uo yeorpey “I 


‘HLIM INHWaARADY NI aolanlaag 


IIA SAMAOUNd AOIGN[ANd 


A ppendix 


UOISI[OY JO WIOY AuY ysuUIesYy 

Alo AJ DISC ‘UOIWIWSIEdNsS yulesy 

S[EOIPeY SNOB yoy yuresy 

S}SITeJUSMIepUNY SNosyoy yuresy 

S[ROIPeY DIWIOUODY ysulesy 

ond snyzejyS DIuIOUON YsuIeEsYy 

S[eIOJW BSO007T ‘d9a1J 

SJUSUIBSNUIY puUe SsTeIOPY [eoUe WING P~LIS 

WISIDIJOYJLD ULWIOY 

UISTJUL}S9}OIg 

TeSIPeY SNorsipoy 

UISI[VIVQI'T ‘WISTUIOpOPY UeIWSIIYS 

WS][ejUIMIepUN 

‘O}0 ‘UISIOISAJY ‘UOTUNUIWIOD [eUOsIOg 

‘Jo ‘UOTJLATLS [ENPIAIPU]T YIM YSeIZUOD ut ‘fadsoy [eII0S 
sjecipey suisoddg pure onG snjze}g s1mM0UODY SuLIOAey ‘ysiTeyIdeg 
SUIIOJOY PII SuLIseq ‘[e1oqry] DtwMOU0NW 


wstjeyded 0} pesoddgo ‘suorjsenG Iuou0ly uO [eoIpey 


‘HLIM INSWaaADY NI aoIanlaug 


o€ O02 SI 


sUsIaJUOD JO puy soIpnfo1g soy LZZZZZZA 
aousIajJuOD Jo Suruuriseg voIpnfsaig s10Jy Rites 


AWY 
HONFAAINOD “VY ‘OD 'M ‘A INTGALS VAUNA AAIVI—D ‘_ ‘VW SWAOY 


XI SATIAOUd AOIGN[AUd 


"QI 
*LI 
‘91 
rae 
‘VI 
“er 
"oI 
7e1 


‘OI 


The Measurement of Fair-Mindedness 


84 


UOISI[PY JO WAOY Auy ysuIesYy “gl 


AID SAP ‘OIdePy ‘UoTWIsIedNs ysuresy “LI 


S[COIPeY SNOBoYy Juresy “OI 


SjS][VJUSWMIePUNY SNOB yoy ysuresy ‘SI 


S[ROIPeY Dwo0uoI, ysuresy ‘Vv 


Lal 


ono snyzejig DwWOUO NY ysuresy *f 


Lael 


Lal 


S[PIOJP VSOOT ‘991 *% 


SjuNWESNUIY pue speIO| [eoUeWINgG PIS ‘I 


e 


WISINI[OYID UPUIOY ‘Oo 


Lal 


UWISIJULISI}IOIG *6 


[POPE SNOBpY *g 


WISTTRIVqIT ‘WISTUIapOoyy UeIIsIyD *L 


UIST[eJUSUIepUNY “oO 
‘Oye ‘WISIOIISAPT ‘UOTUNUIMIOD yeUuOosIag *S 


‘OJo ‘UOIZATLS [ENPIAIpU] YAM ysvIyUOD ut ‘Jadsoy [eII0Sg “PV 


s[eoipey sursoddg pue onG snjzejs ormouoog Sur0aAey ‘ys1jeydeg °*f 
SUMIOJOY PII SuUltIsed ‘[e1eqiy oIwmOU0DW *z 


tusijeyided 0} pasoddo ‘suonsenO ormou0og uo yeoIpey ‘I 


SHLIIM INGNEaGYOV NI goIanlaug 


os SY Or SE oe SZ o7 SI Ot G fe) 


duUsIaJUOD JO pug sIpnfoig s1OP Sozeorpuy VASLLLLA, 
Z 


VIUIIOJUOD JO SuluUIseg VsoIpNfoig s1OJ So}yeOIpuy foe 


AY 
AONAUTINOD “VY “‘D 'M ‘A INFGALS VAINAD aIvI—YJ ‘A ‘q SWAoOy 


X SATIAOUd ADIGN[ANd 


STATISTICAL TABLES 


TABLE I 
NorMS FOR Gross SCORE—ARRANGED BY GROUPS 


Group Number Mean S. D. 
Normal School Students 102 32.0% 8.9 
Persons Selected as Fair-Minded 13 13.0 5.8 
Persons Selected as Very Prejudiced 5 61.4 8.8 


Methodist Ministers (In One Mid- 
Western State) 35 36.8 12.1 


Students in Union Theological Semi- 


nary 46 ani2 8.5 
Students in Yale Divinity School ri 26.4 9.0 
Miscellaneous College Graduates 39 26.6 12:7 
ToTAL GRouP ai 29:1% 153% 

TABLE II 
FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF GROSS SCORE 
311 CASES 

Gross Score | Number 
in Per Cent 

O— 4.9 2 

Sanna 3 
I0O—14.9 22 
I5—I19.9 Sie) 
20—24.9 54 
25—29.9 ot 
30—34-9 mp 
3539-9 Do 
40—44.9 26 
4549.9 Il 
50—54.9 8 
Shmme os, 2 
60—64.9 I 
65—69.9 3 
70—74.9 | I 


86 The Measurement of Fair-Mindedness 


TABLE III 


RATING OF ARGUMENTS—TEST E-10 


Note: The roman numerals in the first column on the left correspond to the questions in the test. 
Beneath each, the arabic numerals are listed, one for each argument. The second column indicates 
the side of the question supported by the argument. The third column indicates the rating strong 
or weak, which is presumed. The fourth column lists in its two subdivisions the vote of the twelve 
judges selected by the author. The fifth column in similar fashion lists the ratings given by the 
twelve persons who were most fair-minded, as judged by the rest of the test. In the sixth column 
the per cent of the twenty-four judges who agreed with the test rating, is given. 


ORIGINAL JUDGES F ants ae! PER CENT 
eS Oe a eae ereesonee 2 8 ag 
ARGUMENT | SIDE OF TEST AGREEING 
NUMBER ISSUE RATING Strong Weak Strong Weak /witH TEST 
ifs | | 
: Yes Strong 12 oO 9 3 88% 
2) No Weak I II 3 9 83 
ep DN Strong I2 fe) 12 O 100 
4. Yes Weak O I2 2 10 92 
5. No Weak I II I II 92 
6. Yes Weak O 8 Tie II 95 
tl; 
re No Strong II I I2 re) 96% 
2) No Weak oO 12 I II 96 
a: Yes Weak fe) 12 () 12 100 
a Yes Strong 10 2 II I 88 
i No Weak I II a 9 83 
6. Yes Weak O I2 I II Ed EEN ce Aearcie eee | meen a 
Til 
1: Yes Weak e) I2 fe) 12 100% 
ep Yes Strong 9 3 ? 5 67 
2: No Strong I2 Oo II I 96 
4. Yes Strong 9 3 10 2 79 
5: No Strong II I II I 92 
6. No Weak 3 | 9 x 9 75 
IV. 
i Yes Strong IO 2 7 5 71% 
2: Yes Weak 2 ‘IO 6 6 67 
a No Weak fe) 12 = 10 92 
4. Yes Strong I2 ) 12 oO 100 
5. No Weak 2 10 4 8 75 
6. No | Strong 12 e) II I 96 


A ppendix 87 


TABLE III (Continued) 


Most 


ORIGINAL JUDGES FArr-MINDED PER CENT 

is fel eee eee, ee Se OR = BOTH, 

ARGUMENT | SIDE OF TEST AGREEING 
NUMBER ISSUE RATING Strong Weak Strong Weak  |witH TEST 


| 
V. | 

1B Yes Weak I II 6 6 71% 
2. No Weak I II I II 92 

3. No Strong I2 oO 10 2 92 

4. Yes Strong IO 2 II I 88 

re Yes Strong 9 3 II I 83 

6. No Weak oO I2 4 8 93 

aN 

a Yes Weak I II 4 8 79% 
2. No Strong II I 7 5 ve 

8. Yes Strong 12 9) I2 fe) 100 

4. Yes Strong 9 3 7 5 67 

5. No Weak fe) I2 4 8 83 

6. No Weak e) I2 2 10 g2 

ok eave ee PR OG SS SS Te Laie As cst DL Dk tes GER Se ik eran ES 
Vil. 

re No Weak I II 5 7 75% 
2, No Strong 10 2 6 6 67 

3. Yes Strong II I 9 a 83 

4. Yes Strong I2 oO I2 fo) 100 
5. Yes Weak O I2 3 9 88 

6. No Weak O I2 I II 96 

VIII. 

I3 Yes Weak oO I2 ) I2 100% 
ZI Yes Strong Ig O I2 O 100 
as No Strong 10 2 7 5 71 

4. No Weak I 1B I II 92 

i Yes Weak O I2 I II 96 

6. No Strong II I 10 2 88 

IX. Tee a 

1s Yes Weak I II 4 8 79% 
2 | No Weak oO I2 oO I2 100 
ai No Strong I2 (o) IO 2 92 

4. Yes Strong 10 acid D IO 2 83 

5. NE Strong II Beoed 9 a 83 

6. o | Strong 9 3 | 8 4 71 

| 


88 The Measurement of Fair-Mindedness 


TABLE III (Continued) 


ORIGINAL JUDGES | F — Maes PER CENT 
NIE AS SUIS AL ey Mh 5 OORT HG og 
ARGUMENT SIDE OF TEST AGREEING 
NUMBER ISSUE RATING Strong Weak Strong Weak WITH TEST 
X. 
Tr: Yes Weak O I2 I 11 96% 
eg Yes Strong IO 2 8 4 75 
2 No Weak oO I2 I II 96 
4. No Strong 9 3 I2 oO 88 
5. Yes Strong 10 2 12 O g2 
6. No Strong 12 O I2 e) 100 
| 
XI. 
'¢ Yes Weak I II 6 6 71% 
Bs No Strong IO 2 7 5 71 
<f No Strong I2 O 6 6 75 
4. Yes Strong II I II I 92 
5. No Weak 3 9 2 10 79 
6. Yes Weak I 7 e) De 96 


A ppendix 


TABLE IV 


89 


MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS FOR GrROsS SCORE ON EACH FoRM 


TEst FORM 


NTmuaw> 


TOTAL TEST 
(311 Cases) 


133, CASES 


MEAN 


28.9 
40.9 
27.1 
44.3 
37.6 
16.7 


29.1 


TABLE V 


SELF CORRELATION OF GROSS SCORE 


117 CASES 


TEST FORM 


tmvdvawp 


ToTaL TEST 


(161 Cases) 


SELF CORRELATION 


.QI 
.9O 
85 
.67 
.66 


.78 


.96 


Lied 


90 The Measurement of Fair-Mindedness 


TABLE VI 


SELF CORRELATION OF THE 
EIGHTEEN ANALYTICAL LINES oF BIAS 


Probable Self-r 


Direction Self-r Self-r Maximum Number|on 200 Such Points 
of Bias 30 Papers 61 Papers of Points (70 Items) 

I .74 .69 189 .70 
I] .39 51 93 -69 
III .68 .59 1O2 .60 
IV 84 .69 188 76 
V .82 84 143 .88 
VI .94 79 182 81 
VII 81 .60 89 Me ty 
VIII .97 .80 164 83 
IX 64 35 58 65 
xX 51 52 66 77 
XI .78 .69 107 81 
XII .70 .46 94 65 
XIII 75 .67 188 .68 
XIV 54 .49 205 .49 
XV .40 58 I51 65 
XVI .68 84 I5I 88 
XVII .46 58 86 .76 
XVIII 85 .78 182 .80 


Note: Only the first twelve are now used in analytical scoring. 


TABLE VII 


CORRELATIONS BETWEEN GROSS SCORES FOR EACH TEST FORM WITH 
Gross SCORES FOR TOTAL TEST 


TrEst FORM CORRELATION 


AMoOAW D> 


Ap pendix 91 


TABLE VIII 


CORRELATIONS BETWEEN Gross Scores FoR Eacu Test Form WITH 
Gross SCORES ON REMAINING ForMS 


TEST FORM CORRELATION 
A TY 
B 42 
C 30 
D 0 
E .36 
F 21 
LAD EE LX 


CORRELATIONS BETWEEN DIAGNOosIS GIVEN BY EACH FoRM 
OF TEST WITH DIAGNOsIS GIVEN BY TOTAL TEST 


| 
TEST FORM 119 CASES 40 CASES APPROXIMATE 


P METHOD r COMPOSITE 
A 54 .63 58 
B .60 .86 173 
& 53 .67 .60 
D 58 .56 .57 
E 61 .49 “55 
F .48 42 45 
TABLE X 


BALLOT FOR Most FAIrR-MINDED PERSON 


Faculty No. 1 (About 100 Persons) 


NUMBER OF VOTES 
PERSONS RECEIVED 
I Dr 
I 7 
I 6 
2 4 
3 3 
5 2 
2I I 


LOTAI, 34 72 (Cast by 39 voters) 


92 The Measurement of Fair-Mindedness 


TABLE X (Continued) 
BALLOT FOR Most FAtir-MINDED PERSON 


Faculty Vote on Faculty No. 2 (About 22 Persons) 


NUMBER OF VOTES 
PERSONS RECEIVED 
: | : 
I 6 
I 3 
3 24 
i I 
TOTAL IA | 36 (Cast by 18 voters) 


Students Vote on Faculty No. 2 (About 22 Persons)* 


NUMBER OF VOTES 
PERSONS RECEIVED 
I 33 
I 12 
I 7 
I 6 
I 5 
I 8 
5 2 
6 I 
TOTAL ite | 82 (Cast by 44 voters) 


Student Vote on Student Body No. 1 (About 120 Persons) 


NUMBER OF VOTES 
PERSONS RECEIVED 

I II 
I 7 
I 6 - 
I 3 
3 © 
9 2 

21 I 

TOTAL a7 77 (Cast by 42 voters) 


*Note: The first four selected by this vote included the same persons as were among the first 
four selected by the faculty vote. There was one difference in order. 


A ppendix 93 


TABLE XI 


AGREEMENT BETWEEN PREDICTIONS MADE BY OTHER PERSONS, AND 
PREJUDICES REVEALED IN TEsT PROFILES 
PROFILES NUMBERS I-24 


Profile Number of Predictions Predictions Predictions 
Number Predictions Clearly Fulfilled Doubtful Not Fulfilled 
I 3 3 
2 2 2 
3 4 3 I 
4 4 4 
5 2 I I 
6 I I 
7 2 2 
8 2 2 
9 I I 
Io 2 2 
II 3 2 I 
I2 3 3 
13 3 3 
14 os 2 I 
15 I I 
16 2 I I 
17 3 3 
18 2 I I 
19 4 2 2 
20 I I 
21 4 4 
22 2 I I 
23 ] 3] 
24 2 I I 


| 
— fF 


ToraLs 59 43 10 6 


94 The Measurement of Fair-Mindedness 


TABLE XII 


REACTIONS OF INDIVIDUAL TEST SUBJECTS 
TO THEIR PREJUDICE PROFILES AS REVEALED BY THE TEST* 


Profile Number of Number Questioned 
Number Reactions Approved Number or Rejected 


25. 
26. 


a9 
28. 


29. 


Oo On oO N OO 
me N 


\O 


=a 


Ro NH = WD = _ 


iS) 
OOVUOUOUOUOUONOUOODOOOOOOOUOUOUUOOUOUUUOUOUOUOUOUOMO NYO 


SCSAUN ADO ADANNO WONN DWAWO DO WO OM 
4 


iS) 
iS) 
° 
on 
Ny 


TOTALS 272 


*Note: A “blanket’’ approval or disapproval, is interpreted here as equivalent to approval or 
disapproval of nine of the eighteen items. 


A ppendix 95 
TABLE XIII 


AGREEMENT ON GROUP DIFFERENCES AS REVEALED BY TESTS 
WITH GROUP DIFFERENCES PREDICTED BY JUDGus 


NUMBER 
NUMBER THESE NUMBER 
GROuPS MARKED ““MARKED”’ | DIFFERENCES 
COMPARED DIFFERENCES|DIFFERENCES| EXISTING 
PREDICTED SHOWN BY But Not 
BY JUDGES TEST **MARKED”’ 
Catholic— 
Protestant 5 4 oO 
Normal School Students— 
Methodist Ministers 5 5 Oo 
Ministers Over 40 Years of Age— 
Ministers Under 40 Years of Age 4 5 I 
Methodist Ministers— 
Students, Union Theological Seminary 6 5 I 
Ministers, Theological Seminary— 
Ministers with only High School Prepara- 
tion 4 3 O 
New Jersey Students— 
Wisconsin Students 2 2 O 
Yale Divinity Students— 
Students Union Theological Seminary 3 2 I 


TOTALS 32 26 3 


96 The Measurement of Fatr-Mindedness 


TABLE XIV 


AGREEMENT OF JUDGES WiTH OUTSTANDING DIFFERENCES 
\BRTWEEN GRouPS AS REVEALED BY TEsTS 


NUMBER JUDGES 


NUMBER JUDGES EXPECTING 
GRoups DIFFERENCES AS | DIFFERENCES IN 
COMPARED SHOWN REVERSE 
DIRECTION 
Catholic— 
Protestant 42 3 
Normal School Students— 
Methodist Ministers 37 I 
Ministers Over 40 Years of Age— 
Ministers Under 40 Years of Age 31 8 
Methodist Ministers— 
Students: Union Theological Seminary 34 re) 
Ministers: Theological Seminary— 
Ministers with only High School Preparation 29 I 
New Jersey Students— 
Wisconsin Students 25 6 
Yale Divinity Students— 


Union Theological Seminary Students 23 2 


TOTALS . 227 22 


A ppendix 97 
TABLE XV 


SUMMARY OF PREJUDICE SCORES AT BEGINNING AND END 
OF CONFERENCE OF AMERICAN COUNTRY LIFE ASSOCIATION 


AVERAGE PER CENT|AVERAGE PER CENT 


BASIS OF 
Scone peebete heel tue een 
Complete Test: Gross Score 34% 34% 
Form A (Cross Out Test) 25 24 
Form B (Degree of Truth Test) 42 44 
Form E (Arguments Test) 13 17 
Analyzed Score in Agreement with: 
1. Orthodox, Fundamentalist Religion 8 7 
2. Radical Religious Ideas 13 I2 
3. Economic Capitalism, Canservatism 7 8 
4. Radical and Liberal Economic Ideas 17 16 
5. Backward, Conservative, Agricultural and 
Community Outlook 5 5 
6. Liberal, Progressive Agricultural and 
Community Outlook ie. 12 


The differences between conservative points of view which range from 5 per 
cent to 8 per cent, and progressive, liberal points of view which range from I2 
per cent to 17 per cent are probably significant as indicating the ‘‘tone’”’ of the 
conference. None of the changes between beginning and end are large enough 
to have any clear significance. 


NY sa 
Nang es me ah 
Lhe 


‘all 
ee Ge6. 


7 


, 
: / 
* + 
id « 
. how) q 
’ ua? by 
i VF 
A , “A 
. by we or . 
’ 
r j 
. . iy = 
Un - iG 
" ~ j 
’ 
* % 
J , uy U 
s ‘ i 
ie Bore, 
“~ ’ ose 


